Alley v. Nott 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 held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, William Alley, was held in federal custody in the state of Mississippi. Alley sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the state court judge, William Nott. Alley then appealed 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a 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 detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the state court's decision to deny the writ of habeas corpus was not a violation of the prisoner's constitutional rights. 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a 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 detain a prisoner.

In Alley v. Nott, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and would encourage other individuals to violate similar laws. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts are binding regardless of any violations of state law and should only be voided if they contravene federal or constitutional law. He argued that enforcing such contracts is necessary for upholding private property rights and protecting citizens from unjustified interference by government entities. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to void contracts based on their own laws would lead to confusion as each state has its own set of rules governing contractual agreements. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while some may disagree with the terms of a particular agreement due to moral considerations or personal beliefs, courts must enforce them unless there is clear evidence demonstrating otherwise under federal or constitutional law