Cheney v. Van Arsdale was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, Cheney, was arrested and charged with a federal crime. He was then held in federal custody pending trial. Cheney then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, seeking to be released from federal custody. 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 federal custody. 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 detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to grant or deny the writ. 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 federal custody. 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 detain a prisoner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cheney v. Van Arsdale, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of state power. He argued that under existing law, states had no right to interfere with contracts between individuals or corporations unless they were specifically authorized by Congress. The contract at issue in this case did not fall into any of these categories and thus should have been upheld as valid according to prior Supreme Court decisions on similar matters. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if the majority's ruling was allowed to stand it could be used as justification for future interference from state governments into private contractual agreements without congressional authorization - an outcome he found unacceptable given its potential implications for individual liberty and economic freedom.