Beard v. Burt 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 a prisoner, William Beard, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Beard 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 Beard was released from prison. The United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the power to issue such writs was reserved to the federal government. The Court reasoned that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was an inherent power of the federal government, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power. The Court also noted that the state court's action was in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that federal law is supreme over state law. In conclusion, the United States 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 power to issue such writs was reserved to the federal government, and that the state court's action was in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Beard v. Burt, arguing that the majority had erred in their decision to uphold a state statute which prohibited non-residents from hunting on public lands within its borders. He argued that this violated Article IV of the Constitution, which states that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States” and thus should not be subject to such restrictions. Furthermore, he noted that while it was true there were some limits on these rights due to considerations for safety or health reasons, those limitations must still be reasonable and applied equally across all states; however, he believed this particular law was neither reasonable nor equal as it only applied to non-residents who wished to hunt on public land within a given state's boundaries. In conclusion Justice Field stated his belief that if such laws were allowed then they would lead down a slippery slope where other types of discrimination against out-of-state residents could become commonplace without any legal recourse available for them.