In the case of Braun v. Sauerwein, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide 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, John Braun, was held in a federal prison in Ohio. His family sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court in order to secure his release. The state court granted the writ, but the federal government argued that the state court had no authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that could not be denied by the federal government. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a necessary tool for protecting the rights of individuals against unlawful imprisonment. The Court's decision in Braun v. Sauerwein established that state courts have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the rights of prisoners held in federal custody.

In Braun v. Sauerwein, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court could enforce an agreement made between two parties in another state. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such agreements were subject to the laws of their respective states and thus beyond the jurisdiction of any other court. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on grounds that he believed Congress had granted authority to all courts within its jurisdiction to enforce contracts regardless of where they were formed or executed. He argued that since Congress had given no indication otherwise, there was nothing preventing a state court from enforcing such an agreement if both parties agreed upon it and accepted its terms without coercion or fraud. Furthermore, he reasoned that allowing enforcement would promote interstate commerce by providing greater certainty for those engaging in business across borders and encouraging them to enter into valid contracts knowing they will be enforced wherever either party may reside at any time thereafter.