Gonzales v. Ross 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 who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, Gonzales, was arrested and detained by federal authorities in California. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, seeking to be released from federal custody. The California Supreme Court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the California Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to grant or deny the writ. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the California Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Ross, arguing that the court should not have granted a writ of error to review the decision of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that there was no federal question presented by this case and thus it did not fall within any jurisdiction given to the US Supreme Court under Article III or IV of the Constitution. Furthermore, he noted that even if such a federal question had been raised, it would be inappropriate for them to interfere with state law as long as those laws were constitutional and reasonable. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while he sympathized with Mr. Gonzalez's plight, they could not grant him relief without violating their own rules regarding judicial power and interfering with state sovereignty over its own affairs.