In Creighton v. Kerr, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Creighton, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving a sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. 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 court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's judgment. 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 had been convicted in a federal court. 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 court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's judgment.

In the case of Creighton v. Kerr, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to dismiss an appeal from a Circuit Court ruling in favor of defendant Kerr. Field contended that the lower court had erred in its interpretation and application of state law, which was relevant to determining whether or not plaintiff Creighton had been wrongfully deprived of his property rights by Kerr. He further argued that it was within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review such errors made by lower courts when they involve questions regarding federal laws and constitutional provisions, as this particular case did with respect to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. In conclusion, he maintained that there were sufficient grounds for granting certiorari and reversing the judgment below on behalf of Creighton since it appeared clear from both legal precedent and established principles governing civil procedure that he had been denied justice in this matter.