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 sought a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court. 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 by the state. The Court further reasoned that the writ was a necessary tool to protect the rights of prisoners and to ensure that they were not unlawfully detained. The Court also held that the writ of habeas corpus was a necessary tool to protect the rights of prisoners and to ensure that they were not unlawfully detained. The Court reasoned that the writ was a fundamental right that could not be denied by the state. The Court further held that the writ was a necessary tool to protect the rights of prisoners and to ensure that they were not unlawfully detained. 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 was a fundamental right that could not be denied by the state and was a necessary tool to protect the rights of prisoners and to ensure that they were not unlawfully detained.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cannon v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which allowed for the seizure of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress and violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. Furthermore, he stated that it was not within Congress' power to enact laws which would allow them to take private property from individuals without just compensation or any form of judicial proceedings whatsoever. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that such a law should be declared void as being repugnant to both the Constitution and common sense principles regarding individual rights and liberties.