Davies v. Arthur 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Arthur, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Arthur sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. The state court granted 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 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 remedy, 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 remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Davies v. Arthur 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 principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Davies v. Arthur, arguing that the majority had erred by failing to consider a prior decision of the Supreme Court of California which held that an individual could not be deprived of their property without due process. He argued that this was a fundamental principle and should have been considered when deciding whether or not Davies' rights were violated. Furthermore, he noted that while it may be true that there is no constitutional provision explicitly protecting individuals from being deprived of their property without due process, such protection can still be found within other parts of the Constitution such as Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause and Amendment XIV's Due Process Clause. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating "I am unable to concur in holding [that] these provisions do not protect against deprivation...without due process."