In Gregg v. Moss, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Gregg, had been convicted in a federal court of a felony and was serving a sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to those who are in custody under the authority of the state, and Gregg was in custody under the authority of the federal government. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to those who are challenging the legality of their confinement, and Gregg was not challenging the legality of his confinement, but rather the constitutionality of his conviction. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case, and Gregg's petition was denied.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Moss, arguing that the decision of the Supreme Court was contrary to precedent and should be reversed. He argued that a writ of error could not issue from a state court unless it had jurisdiction over both parties and their subject matter, which he believed did not exist in this case. According to Justice Field, there were two separate causes of action between these parties: one for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract by Gregg against Moss; and another for trespass on land owned by Moss but occupied by Gregg without his consent or authority. Since only one cause was before the state court—the trespass claim—it lacked jurisdiction over both claims as well as any other matters related to them such as costs or attorney fees associated with either suit. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that no writ should have been issued since it would amount to granting relief beyond what is allowed under existing law.