Dewolf v. Hays was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Dewolf, was held in a federal prison in California and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. 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 prerogative, 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 federal government had the exclusive power to grant or deny the writ. 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 prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In the case of Dewolf v. Hays, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider important facts when deciding on their ruling. He believed that it was wrong for them to hold that an individual could be held liable for failing to pay taxes due from another person's estate without any proof of fraud or collusion between them. Furthermore, he noted that there were no allegations made by either party regarding fraudulent conduct and thus it would be unjust to impose such liability upon one who had no knowledge or control over another's affairs. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted his belief that the decision should have been based on evidence rather than speculation as this would provide greater protection against arbitrary decisions being made in similar cases going forward.