Waples v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a state prison. The petitioner, Waples, was a prisoner in a state prison in Virginia who had been convicted of a federal crime. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the federal court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners in federal custody, and that the federal court did not have the power to interfere with the state's authority to imprison its own citizens. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to challenge the constitutionality of a state conviction. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners in federal custody, and that the federal court did not have the power to interfere with the state's authority to imprison its own citizens. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to challenge the constitutionality of a state conviction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Waples v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to impose a tax on income derived from real estate transactions without apportioning it among the states according to population. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress and violated the Constitution's requirement for uniform taxation throughout all states. Justice Field further contended that if such taxes were allowed, then they should be imposed uniformly across all states regardless of their populations or other factors. He concluded his dissent by noting that allowing such unequal taxation would lead to "the destruction of our system of government."