In Blitz v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Blitz, was held in a federal prison in the District of Columbia. Blitz sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. Blitz then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to grant such a remedy. The Court's decision in Blitz v. Brown 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 remains an important precedent in the area of federal habeas corpus law.

In the case of Blitz v. Brown, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and logic. He argued that it would be absurd for a court to allow an individual who had committed fraud or other wrongful acts against another person to benefit from their own misdeeds by recovering damages from them. Furthermore, he noted that this ruling could lead to further injustice as individuals may attempt to commit fraudulent acts with impunity if they know they can recover damages from those whom they have wronged. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing such actions would undermine public confidence in the judicial system and should not be allowed under any circumstances.