In Calhoun v. Lanaux, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Louisiana state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The petitioner, Calhoun, was a prisoner in the custody of the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence in the federal penitentiary. Calhoun sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Louisiana state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the Louisiana state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. 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 enforce its laws. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's power to enforce its laws. The Court's decision in Calhoun v. Lanaux established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal custody. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Calhoun v. Lanaux, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass laws regulating private contracts between citizens of different states, as this was an issue reserved for state governments. Furthermore, he noted that such legislation could be used by Congress as a means of interfering with state sovereignty and infringing upon individual rights protected by the Tenth Amendment. In addition, Justice Field argued that allowing Congress to regulate private contracts would open up a Pandora’s box of potential abuses which could threaten civil liberties across America. Finally, he concluded his dissent by noting how important it is for courts not only to interpret law correctly but also ensure its application does not exceed constitutional limits or undermine fundamental principles enshrined in our founding documents