Worden v. Searls was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when the petitioner, Worden, was convicted of a crime in the state of California and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a federal prison. Worden then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Worden's release from federal custody. The federal government then appealed the state court's decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Supreme Court agreed with the federal government, holding that the state court lacked 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 remedy and that the state court lacked the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court lacked the authority to issue such a writ. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court lacked 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 remedy and that the state court lacked the authority to issue such a writ.

In the case of Worden v. Searls, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a non-resident defendant in order to prevent them from disposing of property located within that state's boundaries. The majority opinion held that such an injunction could be issued by a state court, and thus affirmed the decision of the lower courts. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it violated due process for a non-resident defendant to be subjected to suit in another jurisdiction without being given notice or opportunity for defense; secondly, he argued that it would lead to confusion and conflict between different states' laws if each were allowed to exercise control over out-of-state defendants who owned property within their borders. Ultimately then, Justice Field concluded that while states may have some authority over foreign corporations doing business within their borders they should not have power over individuals residing outside those boundaries as this would violate due process rights and create potential conflicts between jurisdictions.