Davis v. Brown 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, Davis, was held in a federal prison in the state of Mississippi. Davis 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority 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. 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 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Davis v. Brown, arguing that a state court's decision should be respected by federal courts unless it is clearly wrong or unconstitutional. He argued that the lower court had correctly interpreted and applied the law to reach its decision, and thus there was no reason for the Supreme Court to interfere with it. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress had intended for federal courts to review state court decisions on questions of fact as well as those of law, they would have explicitly stated so in their legislation. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since there were no constitutional issues involved in this case and since the lower court’s ruling was not “clearly wrong” according to established legal principles at hand then it should stand without any interference from higher courts such as his own.