Enfield v. Jordan 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, Enfield, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Enfield 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 Enfield v. Jordan 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 Enfield v. Jordan, arguing that the majority’s decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of any subsequent changes to state law or regulations. In this case, he believed that the defendant had agreed to pay an annual rent for a certain period of time and could not now refuse payment due to changes in state laws after entering into their agreement. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if such agreements were allowed to be broken by one party whenever they wished without consequence then it would lead to chaos in business dealings across the country as no one would have faith in contracts anymore. Therefore, he concluded that since there was nothing illegal about either party's actions when they entered into their agreement then it must still stand today despite any later alterations made by state legislatures or other governing bodies.