Cordova v. Hood 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 federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, Cordova, was arrested by federal officers in California and held in federal custody. Cordova then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, seeking to be released from federal custody. The California Supreme Court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the California Supreme 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 protect this right. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the California Supreme 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.

In the case of Cordova v. Hood, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it violated an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were unenforceable and should not be recognized by courts as valid agreements. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while states have the right to pass laws regulating certain types of contracts, they do not have the authority to completely invalidate them. He believed that if a contract is made in good faith and with full knowledge of its terms then it should still be enforceable even if it violates state law; otherwise individuals would lack protection from unfair or oppressive contractual arrangements which are contrary to public policy but still technically legal under state statutes.