In the case of People of the State of California ex rel. Hastings v. Jackson & Another, 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 had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Hastings, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment. He then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with a federal court's decision. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy for constitutional violations, and that the state court did not have the power to review the constitutionality of a federal court's decision. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case, and that the petitioner's conviction must stand. This decision established the principle that state courts do not have the power to interfere with the decisions of federal courts.

In the case of People of the State of California ex rel. Hastings v. Jackson & Another, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He noted that under existing law, when a party brings suit against another for damages resulting from breach of contract or tortious conduct, they must bring their action within two years after it accrues; otherwise their claim is barred by statute. The majority had held that this rule did not apply in cases where one state sues another on behalf of its citizens because such suits are considered "political" rather than private actions and thus do not have any time limitation attached to them. In his dissent, Justice Field argued that this interpretation was wrong as it would allow states to sue other states indefinitely without consequence and could potentially be used as a tool for political manipulation between states if allowed to stand unchecked. He concluded by stating his belief that all claims should be subject to some sort of reasonable limitations regardless whether they are brought by individuals or governments alike so as ensure fairness among parties involved in litigation proceedings