Fletcher v. Blake 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, Fletcher, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Fletcher sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. 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. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Fletcher v. Blake, arguing that the majority had misconstrued a key provision of the 1867 Reconstruction Act and thus failed to properly interpret Congress' intent. He argued that while it was true that Section 4 of the act provided for state governments to be reorganized upon certain conditions being met, this did not mean they were automatically restored once those conditions were satisfied; rather, he believed Congress intended for them to remain under federal control until such time as they could demonstrate their loyalty and allegiance to both the United States government and its laws. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one accepted the majority's interpretation of Section 4, there was still no basis on which it could be held unconstitutional since it merely gave states an opportunity - not a mandate - to reorganize themselves according to prescribed guidelines. In conclusion, he urged his colleagues in dissent "to adhere strictly" to what he saw as Congress' clear intention when enacting this law: namely, allowing loyal citizens within each state an opportunity "to form new State Governments."