Fraser v. Jennison 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, John Fraser, was held in a federal prison in New York. Fraser 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 prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. The Court's decision in Fraser v. Jennison 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 Fraser v. Jennison, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider important facts of the case. He argued that under New York state law, a contract between two parties could not be rescinded without mutual consent unless there was fraud or mistake involved. In this case, he argued that no such fraud or mistake existed and thus both parties were bound by their agreement as written. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one party did breach an agreement it would only entitle them to damages for any losses incurred rather than allowing them to completely void the entire contract. Therefore, he concluded that since neither party had committed any fraudulent act nor made a mistake in entering into their agreement they should remain bound by its terms until either side chose to terminate it with mutual consent.