United States v. Wallace was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The case involved a man named Wallace who had been convicted of murder in the state of Mississippi and sentenced to death. Wallace filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional because he had been denied the right to a jury trial. The federal court granted the writ and ordered the state to release Wallace. The state of Mississippi appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court agreed with the state, ruling that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus was a state prerogative and that the federal court could not interfere with the state's criminal proceedings. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not a remedy for constitutional violations, but rather a means of ensuring that state prisoners were not held in custody without due process of law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Wallace, arguing that the majority's interpretation of a statute was incorrect and should not be followed. He argued that Congress had intended to allow for an appeal from a decision by the Commissioner of Patents when it passed legislation allowing appeals from decisions made by district courts or circuit courts concerning patents. The language used in the statute did not indicate any intention on behalf of Congress to limit such appeals only to those cases where there were two parties involved; rather, Justice Field believed that this limitation was being imposed upon what he saw as clear congressional intent without sufficient justification. Furthermore, he noted that if his interpretation were accepted then all patentees would have access to judicial review regardless of whether they had been sued or not - something which could hardly be seen as undesirable given its potential benefits for protecting inventors' rights and interests against government interference or abuse.