Bronson v. Schulten 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, Bronson, was held in a federal prison in Wisconsin. Bronson sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Wisconsin 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 Bronson v. Schulten 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-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bronson v. Schulten, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a "confusion of principles" in contract law. He argued that under prior decisions, when an agreement is made between two parties for consideration, it must be performed according to its terms or else one party can sue for damages resulting from breach of contract. In this case, he contended that there had been no performance on either side and thus neither party could recover anything from the other as they were both equally at fault. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that since there had been no performance by either party then any subsequent action taken by them should not be considered binding upon each other as it would create a situation where contracts could be formed without mutual assent or consideration being exchanged between parties. As such he concluded his dissent with the statement: “The result reached by my brethren seems to me so opposed to principle and authority as well as sound sense…that I cannot concur therein."