Cannon v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The petitioner, Cannon, was a prisoner in a state prison in Mississippi who had been convicted of a federal crime. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court in order to challenge his conviction. The United States argued that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ because the prisoner was held in a state prison. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that could not be denied to a prisoner held in a state prison. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus was a necessary part of the federal judicial system and that the federal court had the authority to issue the writ in order to protect the rights of the prisoner. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that could not be denied and that it was a necessary part of the federal judicial system.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cannon v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass a law making it illegal for citizens of one state to bring suit against another state without its consent, as this would be an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights. Furthermore, he noted that if such a law were allowed to stand, it could potentially lead to other laws infringing upon states' rights in similar ways. Finally, Justice Field asserted that even if Congress did have such power over suits between two states or their citizens, then any act passed by Congress must be strictly construed and limited only those cases specifically mentioned within its language; since this particular act made no mention of suits brought by individuals from one state against another individual from another state (as opposed to suits between two different governments), then it should not apply here either.