In Brown v. Brackett, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Brown, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving a sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. 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 court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's judgment. 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 who had been convicted in a federal court. 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 court's judgment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Brown v. Brackett, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the law and failed to consider relevant facts of the case. He argued that under California law, a married woman was not allowed to own property separate from her husband; thus, when Mrs. Brackett purchased land with money she inherited from her father's estate, it became part of Mr. Bracketts' estate upon their marriage and could not be sold without his consent or court order. Justice Field further noted that even if Mrs. Brackett had been able to purchase land on her own behalf prior to marrying Mr. Bracketts', he would still have a right as an heir-at-law of his wife's inheritance since any real property acquired by either spouse during marriage is considered community property in California unless otherwise specified by contract or deed between them before they marry - which did not occur here because there was no such agreement between them at all regarding this particular piece of land in question.. As such, Justice Field concluded that Mr.Bracketts should have been given full rights over this parcel of land regardless whether it was owned solely by Mrs..Bracketts prior to their marriage or jointly afterwards due its status as community property according state laws applicable at time