Cadle v. Baker 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Cadle, was held in a federal prison in the state of Indiana. Cadle 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 authority to interfere with the federal government's power 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 Cadle v. Baker established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also clarified the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, and established that it could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cadle v. Baker, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that it was not within the court's authority to review state court decisions on matters of equity, as such questions were best left for determination by state courts. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been an error in judgment by the lower courts, this did not necessarily mean they had exceeded their jurisdiction or committed any other reversible error; rather than overturning a validly-rendered verdict based on its own assessment of facts and evidence presented at trial, Justice Field believed it should be up to Congress or legislatures to decide whether further action is necessary when errors are made in state proceedings. In conclusion, he warned against allowing federal judges too much discretion over cases involving equitable relief which could potentially undermine public confidence in both federal and state judiciaries alike.