Burton v. Driggs was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Burton, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. The state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to the warden of the prison, Driggs, ordering him to produce Burton before the court. Driggs refused to comply with the writ, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. 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 writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Burton v. Driggs 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 the federal government has the exclusive power to imprison individuals.

In the case of Burton v. Driggs, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that while states have authority to regulate certain aspects of private contracts, they cannot completely invalidate them if there is no public policy interest at stake. He further noted that even though some laws may prohibit certain types of agreements or impose penalties for their breach, those provisions do not necessarily render them void ab initio (from inception). Thus he concluded that courts should still consider enforcing these kinds of contracts on a case-by-case basis depending on their particular circumstances and facts.