Burke v. Miltenberger 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, Burke, was held in a federal prison in Missouri. Burke 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 Burke v. Miltenberger 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 Burke v. Miltenberger, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether it has been fully performed or not. In this case, he believed that there had been an agreement between Burke and Miltenberger to transfer title to certain property from one party to another for a specific sum of money; therefore, even though all aspects of the contract were not fulfilled by either party at the time suit was brought against Miltenberger for breach of contract, they were still bound by its terms. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party failed to fulfill their obligations under such an agreement then they could be held liable for damages resulting from their failure - as long as those damages are foreseeable consequences arising out of non-performance. As such, he concluded that since there had clearly been an agreement between Burke and Miltenberger which neither side had fully performed at the time suit was brought against him (Miltenberger), then he should have been held responsible for any losses suffered due to his breach - including interest on unpaid sums owed according to said agreement.