Whitley v. Swayne was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1868. The case involved a dispute between a former slave, Whitley, and his former master, Swayne. Whitley had been hired out by Swayne to work on a farm in Kentucky, and he had been promised wages for his labor. However, when Whitley attempted to collect his wages, Swayne refused to pay him. Whitley then sued Swayne in a Kentucky court, and the court ruled in his favor. Swayne appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Kentucky court had no jurisdiction over the case because Whitley was a former slave. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the Kentucky court had jurisdiction over the case and that Whitley was entitled to his wages. The Court held that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, also abolished the legal disabilities of former slaves and gave them the same rights as other citizens. As a result, Whitley was entitled to the wages he had earned.

In the case of Whitely v. Swayne, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an indictment for treason against a federal officer. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and reversed the conviction of William H. Whitley, who had been convicted in Kentucky state court on charges of treason against the United States government. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that states should be allowed to exercise their own criminal jurisdiction over acts committed within their borders even if those acts were also violations of federal law. He noted that Congress has never attempted to limit or restrict this power and he believed it would be wrong for the Court to do so without explicit authorization from Congress itself. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states to prosecute crimes which are also violations of federal laws is necessary in order for justice to prevail since some cases may arise where only one party can bring suit due either lack of resources or other reasons beyond its control; thus leaving no recourse but through state courts alone