Collins v. Riggs 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, Collins, was held in a federal prison in the District of Columbia. Collins sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Maryland, where he was originally convicted. The state court issued 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 the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, 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 Collins v. Riggs 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 idea that the federal government has the power to protect the fundamental right of habeas corpus.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Collins v. Riggs, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless it is illegal or against public policy. In this case, he noted that there was no evidence of illegality or fraud on either side; therefore, the contract should have been enforced as written. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party had breached their obligations under the agreement then they could be held liable for damages but not for specific performance of any kind since such an action would amount to forcing them into involuntary servitude which is prohibited by both state and federal laws. Finally, he concluded by stating his belief that contracts are sacred agreements between two parties and must be honored regardless of whether one party has changed their mind about fulfilling its terms after signing it or not.