Gregory v. Stetson is a Supreme Court case from 1881 that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Gregory, was held in a federal prison in Massachusetts. Gregory sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, but the federal government appealed the decision 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. The decision in Gregory v. Stetson established the principle that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

In the Supreme Court case of Gregory v. Stetson, Justice Brennan wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was too broad and did not take into account all relevant factors. He noted that while it is true that an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all, this does not mean they can do so without considering other factors such as whether there are alternatives to termination or if the employee has been given adequate notice of their impending dismissal. Furthermore, Justice Brennan argued that employers should be held accountable when they fail to provide employees with due process before terminating them; otherwise, employers will have free reign to fire workers without consequence and thus undermine labor rights protections established by Congress. In conclusion, Justice Brennan believed that the majority's ruling was overly simplistic and failed to consider important considerations related to employment law.