Estes v. Gunter was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 Texas state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner, William Estes, who was being held in a federal prison in Texas. Estes had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. 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 convicted of federal crimes. 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 that the state court did not have the authority to challenge the legality of a federal conviction. The Court's decision in Estes v. Gunter established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of a federal conviction. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that state courts do not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals convicted of federal crimes.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Estes v. Gunter, arguing that the majority had erred by allowing a state court to exercise jurisdiction over an interstate shipment of cattle. He argued that Congress had exclusive authority to regulate commerce between states and territories, and thus any attempt by a state court to do so was unconstitutional. Furthermore, he noted that while it may be true that Texas law allowed for such action against livestock dealers who failed to pay their debts, this did not extend beyond its borders into other states or territories where similar laws were not in place. Thus, Justice Field concluded that the judgment of the lower courts should have been reversed as they lacked jurisdiction over an interstate transaction involving goods from another state or territory.