Bedford v. Burton 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, Bedford, was held in a federal prison in the state of Ohio. Bedford sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 remedy, 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 remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Bedford v. Burton established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bedford v. Burton, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that under the terms of a contract between two parties, one party cannot be allowed to unilaterally change its obligations without first obtaining consent from the other party. In this case, he noted that there had been no such agreement or consent given by either side for any changes to be made in their contractual obligations; thus, it would have been improper for the court to allow one of them to do so. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if an agreement could be reached between both sides regarding modifications of their respective rights and duties under a contract, those modifications must still comply with applicable laws governing contracts and agreements in order for them to remain valid and enforceable. As such, he concluded that since neither side had agreed upon any changes being made nor were they legally permissible according to existing laws at the time of formation of said contract - then it should not have been altered by either party or enforced by a court ruling as pertained heretofore hereinabove mentioned facts presented before this honorable Court today on behalf thereof now therefore I dissent hereby accordingly amen!