Wilson v. Wall was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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 a prisoner, William Wilson, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Wilson sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 was a federal power, 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 was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Wilson v. Wall established that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the power to protect the fundamental right of habeas corpus.

In Wilson v. Wall, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract. The majority opinion held that such actions were not within the scope of federal judicial power and thus could only be heard in state courts. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress had exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce and therefore should have been allowed to hear this case as it involved two citizens from different states entering into a contract with each other across state lines. He argued further that allowing states to exercise jurisdiction over cases involving interstate contracts would lead to confusion and inconsistency among various jurisdictions due to their varying laws on such matters, thereby undermining national uniformity in commercial transactions between citizens from different states.