Basey et al. v. Gallagher was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. The prisoner, Basey, had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue it. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to those who were being held in state custody, not federal custody. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to those who were being held in state custody, not federal custody. The Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue it.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Basey et al. v. Gallagher, arguing that the majority had misconstrued a California statute and misinterpreted its meaning to reach their conclusion. He argued that under the plain language of the statute, it was clear that an action for damages could be brought against a sheriff who failed to comply with his duties as outlined by law. Furthermore, he noted that there were no exceptions or qualifications stated in this particular section of the code which would allow such actions to be barred from being brought against sheriffs acting within their official capacity on behalf of public officers or corporations; thus, any attempt by courts to create such exceptions should not be allowed and should instead remain solely within legislative purview. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how important it is for citizens’ rights and liberties to have access to legal remedies when they are wronged - even if those wrongs are committed by public officials - so as not only protect them but also ensure accountability among government actors at all levels