Bergdoll v. Pollock 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 federal prisoner. The case involved a man named George Bergdoll, who had been convicted of desertion from the United States Army and sentenced to five years in prison. Bergdoll's attorney filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that the federal court had no jurisdiction over the case. The state court granted the writ, and Bergdoll was released from prison. The United States Supreme Court ultimately 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 power to interfere with the federal court's jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy of last resort, and that the state court should not have issued the writ without first exhausting all other remedies. As a result, the Court reversed the state court's decision and ordered Bergdoll to be returned to prison.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bergdoll v. Pollock, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be overturned. He argued that a state court could not issue an injunction against a federal officer for failing to perform his duties under federal law; rather, it is up to Congress or the President of the United States to determine whether such action should be taken. Furthermore, he contended that if any action were taken against a federal officer for failure to comply with their duties under federal law, it would have been done by Congress or through executive order from the president himself. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that allowing states courts to interfere with matters concerning national authority would lead only towards confusion and chaos within our nation's legal system.