Gage v. Herring 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Gage, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Gage 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 to detain prisoners. 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 the rights of its citizens. 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 to detain prisoners. 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 the rights of its citizens.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gage v. Herring, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He argued that the California Supreme Court had already ruled on this case and their ruling should stand as it is binding precedent for all lower courts to follow. Furthermore, he noted that there were no new facts or evidence presented by either party which would warrant a different outcome than what had been previously determined by the state court. Justice Field also pointed out that if a federal court were allowed to overturn decisions made by state courts without any new information being provided, then it could lead to chaos within our judicial system as each individual circuit court could potentially have its own interpretation of laws from one jurisdiction to another. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent with an admonishment of the majority for failing to recognize established legal principles when making their decision in this case.