In the case of Glenn v. Sumner, 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 had been convicted in a federal court. The case arose when a prisoner, Glenn, was convicted in a federal court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Glenn then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Glenn released from prison. The federal government then 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 convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with a federal criminal conviction. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to prisoners who have exhausted all other remedies available to them in the federal court system. 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 convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with a federal criminal conviction. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to prisoners who have exhausted all other remedies available to them in the federal court system.

In the case of Glenn v. Sumner, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He argued that the court had failed to properly consider all relevant facts when it decided to grant summary judgment for Sumner on his claim against Glenn. Specifically, Scalia noted that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not Glenn had acted with malice when he made certain statements about Sumner during a radio broadcast. As such, these questions could only be resolved by trial and thus summary judgment should have been denied so that this issue could be determined at trial rather than being decided prematurely by the court without full consideration of all evidence available.