Christmas v. Russell 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 Christmas, was held in a federal prison in Georgia. Christmas had been convicted of a crime in the state of Georgia and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. Christmas sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Christmas v. Russell established 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 decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In the case of Christmas v. Russell, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred by failing to recognize an important distinction between cases involving public and private rights. He maintained that while it was true that state courts could not review decisions made by federal courts concerning matters of public right, they were allowed to do so when it came to issues of private right. In this particular case, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence presented for the jury to find in favor of Christmas on his claim against Russell for damages resulting from trespass upon his property; thus, he concluded that the Supreme Court should have reversed or modified its decision rather than dismissing it altogether.