Cheever v. Wilson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Cheever, was held in a federal prison in Massachusetts. Cheever sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 prerogative, 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 fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to protect this right. In conclusion, 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 prerogative, 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 fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to protect this right.

In Cheever v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were void and unenforceable, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while the contract may have violated a law or public policy, it should still be enforceable as long as both parties agreed to its terms voluntarily and without fraud or coercion. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing such contracts would not necessarily lead to any harm being done since they did not involve any illegal activity on their own; rather, they simply involved activities which happened to violate some other law or policy at the time of their formation. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that upholding these types of agreements would help ensure fairness for all involved by allowing them to receive what was promised under the agreement despite its illegality when formed.