Goodman v. Niblack was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 petitioner, Goodman, was a prisoner in a federal prison in Indiana. He had been convicted of a crime in a state court and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered the federal prison to release Goodman. The federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. The Supreme Court agreed with the federal government, ruling that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power and could only be issued by a federal court. The Court also held that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In Goodman v. Niblack, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because there was no diversity in citizenship among the parties involved and thus it could not be considered a federal question under Article III of the Constitution. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while diversity in citizenship is necessary for federal courts to exercise their constitutional authority, it should not be required when determining if state courts can hear cases involving interstate contracts or disputes. He argued that such matters are within the purview of each individual state's laws and should therefore be heard by its own courts without regard to any jurisdictional requirements imposed by Congress or other higher authorities. Furthermore, he noted that requiring all such cases to go through federal channels would create unnecessary delays and costs which could ultimately harm both litigants as well as society at large.