In Greenwood & Others v. Randall, 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 was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to the prisoner, who was being held in a federal prison in the state of Virginia. The federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the prisoner was being held in a federal prison and the writ was issued by a state court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the state court had the authority to issue the writ in order to protect the prisoner's rights. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the state court had the authority to issue the writ in order to protect the prisoner's rights. The Court's decision in Greenwood & Others v. Randall established that state courts have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to protect the rights of prisoners held in federal prisons.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Greenwood & Others v. Randall, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power over state governments. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass laws regulating private property within a state, as this would be an unconstitutional interference with states' rights. Furthermore, he noted that even if such legislation were constitutional, it could not be applied retroactively because doing so would violate due process protections for individuals who had acted in reliance on existing law prior to its passage. Finally, Justice Field argued that there was nothing in either the language or history of the Fourteenth Amendment which gave Congress any additional powers beyond those already enumerated by Article I of the Constitution; thus any attempt by Congress to regulate private property within a state should have been struck down as unconstitutional.