Glover v. Love was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Glover, was held in federal custody in the state of Arkansas. Glover sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the state court on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over federal prisoners. Glover then appealed 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court lacked the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain prisoners. The Court also noted that the state court's decision was in line with the long-standing principle that state courts should not interfere with the federal government's power to detain prisoners. 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court lacked the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain prisoners.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Glover v. Love, a case concerning whether or not an individual's right to vote was taken away without due process of law when their name was removed from the voter registration list. Justice Harlan argued that it is unconstitutional for states to remove individuals' names from voting lists without providing them with notice and an opportunity to be heard before doing so. He further stated that such action violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and Article IV of the Constitution which protect citizens’ rights against state interference with their civil liberties, including their right to vote. Additionally, he noted that even if there had been some procedural error in this particular case, it would still have been necessary for those responsible for removing Mr. Glover’s name from the voting list to provide him with notice and an opportunity to be heard prior taking any action against him as required by constitutional law. Therefore, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by arguing that Mr. Glover should have been given proper notification before his name was removed from the voter registration list thus violating his constitutional rights under both federal and state laws