Badger et al. v. United States ex rel. Bolles was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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 the petitioner, Badger, was arrested by federal officers and held in federal custody. The petitioner then sought a writ of habeas corpus from a state court, which was denied by the federal government. 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 writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative 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 held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody.

In Badger et al. v. United States Ex Rel. Bolles, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a writ of error should be issued in favor of the defendants to reverse a judgment from an earlier case that had been decided against them by the Circuit Court for Wisconsin's Eastern District. The majority opinion held that no writ should be issued because it found that there were no errors made in the original decision and thus nothing to correct or reverse on appeal. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while he agreed with much of what was said in the majority opinion, he felt strongly enough about certain issues raised during oral arguments to warrant issuing a writ so as not to deny justice where it may have otherwise been due if those matters had gone unaddressed and unchallenged at trial level proceedings. He argued further that even though some technicalities may have prevented reversal under existing law, such technicalities should not stand in way of providing relief when substantial justice has clearly been denied based on other factors presented before court which could only be addressed through appellate review process afforded by granting writs like this one sought here today