In the case of Burr v. Myers, 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The petitioner, Burr, was a prisoner in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. He had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence of imprisonment. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Kansas, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the power to issue such a writ was vested exclusively in the federal courts. The Court further held that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's power to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime. The Court's decision in Burr v. Myers established that the federal government has exclusive authority to imprison persons convicted of federal crimes. The decision also established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners in federal prisons.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Burr v. Myers, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that a contract between two parties should not be interpreted so as to give one party all of its benefits while denying those same benefits to the other party. The contract at issue provided for payment of money by one party upon completion of certain conditions, but did not provide for any remedy if those conditions were never fulfilled or completed. According to Justice Harlan, this meant that both parties had no legal recourse against each other; thus it was unfair and unjust for either side to benefit from such a situation without providing some form of compensation or relief for the other side. Furthermore, he argued that allowing only one side in such a case would create an inequitable system where contracts could be broken with impunity and without consequence - something which is clearly unacceptable under our laws and judicial precedents.