Collins v. Gilbert 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 a federal prison. The case arose when the petitioner, Collins, was convicted of a crime in the state of Georgia and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a federal prison. Collins then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Collins to be released from federal custody. The United States Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court further held that the state court's order was void and that Collins must remain in federal custody. 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court further held that the state court's order was void and that Collins must remain in federal custody.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Collins v. Gilbert, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to a dangerous precedent. He argued that while Congress had authority over territories it acquired through war or treaty, it did not have such power over those states which were already part of the Union before its formation. Therefore, he believed that any attempt by Congress to pass laws governing these states was unconstitutional and should be struck down as invalid. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if this ruling were allowed to stand then there would be no limit on what powers Congress could exercise within state boundaries; thus allowing for federal interference with local matters which should remain under state control. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief in strict adherence to constitutional limits on Congressional power and urged his colleagues to reconsider their decision in order for justice to prevail.