Bowerman v. Rogers 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 Bowerman, was held in a federal prison in the state of Ohio. Bowerman 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 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 conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Bowerman v. Rogers 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 authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bowerman v. Rogers, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of property could recover damages for its value from any person who had participated in such wrongful dispossession. In this case, he noted that there were two defendants - one who took possession of the property without legal authority and another whose only involvement was providing financial assistance to enable him to do so - but both should be liable for damages since they acted together with a common purpose. Justice Field further argued that if neither defendant could be held liable for damages then it would encourage others similarly situated not to pay attention when their money is used by someone else in an unlawful manner as they will have no fear of being held accountable or responsible for any resulting damage caused by such use.