## Facts

- Edward Tarble, a minor, enlisted in the United States Army.
- Tarble’s father petitioned a Wisconsin state court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his son was a minor who had enlisted without parental consent and was therefore unlawfully held.
- The Wisconsin state court issued the writ of habeas corpus directed to the federal army officer in charge of Tarble.
- The federal officer appeared but maintained that Tarble was lawfully enlisted and held under federal authority.
- Despite the officer’s position, the Wisconsin state court ordered Tarble’s discharge from federal military custody.
- The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court to determine whether a state court could inquire into and order discharge of a person held under federal authority.

## Issues

1. Whether a state court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention by a federal officer acting under color of federal authority.
2. Whether state judicial power may control, supervise, or interfere with the exercise of federal authority over persons held under federal law.

## Decision

- State courts do not have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus to discharge persons held under federal authority.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin state court’s order discharging Tarble from federal military custody.
- The Court held that the federal government’s judicial power over persons held under federal authority is exclusive.
- The Court determined that allowing state courts to interfere with federal custody would undermine the supremacy and independence of the federal government.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Supremacy Clause and the structure of the federal system, federal authority and federal custody cannot be subjected to control or supervision by state courts.
- The power to issue writs of habeas corpus regarding persons held under federal authority belongs exclusively to federal courts, as part of the federal judicial power.
- State and federal governments are distinct sovereignties; neither may, through its courts, interfere with the execution of the other’s lawful authority.
- The decision reinforces the principle that conflicts involving the legality of federal detention must be resolved within the federal judicial system, not by state tribunals.

## Conclusion

Tarble’s Case establishes that state courts lack jurisdiction to issue habeas corpus writs to discharge individuals held under federal authority, confirming that review of federal custody is an exclusive function of the federal judiciary and protecting federal operations from interference by state courts.


Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1871)