Widdicombe v. Childers was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when the petitioner, Widdicombe, was convicted of a crime in the state of Tennessee and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a federal prison. The petitioner then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy for individuals who are unlawfully detained, and that the petitioner had not alleged any unlawful detention. The Court's decision in Widdicombe v. Childers established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also reaffirmed the federal government's power to imprison individuals, and clarified that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy for individuals who are unlawfully detained.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Widdicombe v. Childers, arguing that the majority had erred in their decision to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that Congress did not intend for federal courts to review state court decisions on questions involving title and possession of land when those matters were decided by a state's highest court. Justice Field further noted that if such reviews were allowed, it would create an unnecessary burden on both parties involved as well as undermine public confidence in judicial proceedings at all levels. In conclusion, he stated his belief that allowing federal courts to review cases already decided by a state's highest court was contrary to congressional intent and should be avoided whenever possible.