Adams v. Collier 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 a prisoner, John Adams, was held in a federal prison in Alabama. Adams 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. In conclusion, 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Adams v. Collier, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a state cannot be held liable for damages caused by its officers when they are acting within their authority, even if their actions were wrongful or illegal. Furthermore, he stated that it is not up to the court to determine whether an officer acted properly or not; rather, it is up to Congress and other legislative bodies who have been granted such power under the Constitution. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted that while he did not condone any wrongdoings on behalf of those involved in this case, he could not agree with holding a state responsible for them either as there was no legal basis for doing so.