Blake v. Hawkins 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 Blake, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Blake 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 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority 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 merits of the underlying conviction. In conclusion, 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Blake v. Hawkins, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key issue: whether or not an agreement between two parties was valid and enforceable under state law. He argued that if such an agreement did exist, then it should be enforced by the court regardless of any other considerations. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some doubts about its validity due to lack of consideration or other issues, those doubts could have been resolved through further evidence presented at trial rather than being dismissed outright as invalid without further inquiry. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that since no determination had been made on this matter by either party before entering into their contract, it was wrong for the court to assume its invalidity and deny enforcement of what may very well have been a legitimate contractual arrangement between them.