In Flash and Others v. Conn, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide 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 group of prisoners in a federal prison in Kentucky sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The state court granted the writ, and the prisoners were released. The federal government then sought to have the writ overturned, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. 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 power, 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 protect this right. The Court's decision in Flash and Others v. Conn established that the 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 it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

In Flash and Others v. Conn, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a certain piece of land in Kentucky belonged to the state or to private individuals. The majority opinion held that it belonged to the state, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that there was no evidence presented by either party which showed that any part of the disputed land had ever been owned by Kentucky before its admission into the Union as a state. Furthermore, he noted that if such evidence did exist then it should have been produced during trial and considered when making their decision on ownership rights over said property. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since neither party provided sufficient proof regarding prior ownership of this particular parcel of land then they should not be able to claim exclusive title over it without further investigation into its history first.