Burke v. Tregre 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 Louisiana state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison in Louisiana. The federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. 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 was being held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Burke v. Tregre, arguing that the majority had failed to consider the full scope of Louisiana law when making its decision. He argued that under Louisiana's Civil Code, a contract between two parties was valid even if it did not include consideration or any other form of legal obligation. Furthermore, he noted that this case involved an agreement made by two individuals who were both citizens of Louisiana and thus should be subject to state laws rather than federal ones. In his view, since there was no evidence presented at trial which showed that either party intended to defraud each other or break any laws, then their agreement should be considered legally binding regardless of whether it included consideration or not. Ultimately Justice Harlan concluded by stating that while he agreed with some aspects of the majority opinion regarding contracts without consideration being invalid under certain circumstances such as fraud and duress; however in this particular case those conditions were absent so therefore they should have ruled in favor of upholding the validity of Burke and Tregre's contract instead