Freeman v. Alderson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Freeman, was held in a federal prison in the state of Virginia. Freeman 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority in this matter. 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 ability to protect this right. 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority in this matter. 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 ability to protect this right.

In Freeman v. Alderson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment of a state court could be enforced in another state by means of an injunction from the federal court. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such an action would conflict with principles of comity between states and violate Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution which provides for full faith and credit among them. Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that Congress had granted authority to federal courts to issue injunctions against judgments rendered by other states' courts when necessary for protection or enforcement of rights under laws made pursuant to the Constitution. He argued further that since Congress has power over interstate commerce and can pass laws regulating it, they should also have power over judgments affecting interstate commerce; thus allowing federal courts jurisdiction in cases like this one where there is no dispute about facts but only disagreement about legal conclusions drawn from those facts.