Clarkson v. Stevens was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Clarkson, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Clarkson sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the state court judge, Stevens. Clarkson then appealed 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 state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Clarkson v. Stevens established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the notion that the federal government has the power to protect the fundamental right of habeas corpus.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Clarkson v. Stevens, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that under common law principles of agency, a principal is liable for any act done by an agent acting within their scope of authority even if it causes harm to another party. In this case, he argued that Clarkson had appointed Stevens as his agent with full authority to sell his property on terms agreed upon between them; thus when Stevens sold it without obtaining payment from the buyer, Clarkson was still responsible for fulfilling those obligations since they were made in his name and under his authority. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any fraud or misconduct on behalf of either party which would have absolved Clarkson from responsibility for honoring these obligations. Therefore he concluded that based on established legal precedent regarding agency relationships and lack of evidence showing otherwise, the lower court's ruling should stand and not be overturned by the Supreme Court as decided by majority opinion.