Beeson v. Johns was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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, John Beeson, was held in a federal prison in the state of Indiana. Beeson 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 prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. The Court's decision in Beeson v. Johns established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also clarified the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, and established that it could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement.

In Beeson v. Johns, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide 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 was not enforceable because it violated public policy and thus should not be recognized by courts of equity. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while contracts which violate public policy are generally unenforceable, there may still exist circumstances where such contracts can be enforced if they do not conflict with any other laws or regulations and have been entered into without fraud or coercion. He argued further that in this case, no evidence existed showing either party acted improperly so as to render the agreement void; therefore he concluded that the court should recognize its validity and enforce it accordingly.