Grigsby v. Purcell 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 federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Grigsby, was arrested in Arkansas and charged with a federal crime. He was then transferred to a federal prison in Missouri. Grigsby then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an Arkansas state court, arguing that he was being unlawfully detained. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the merits of the underlying criminal charge. The Court's decision in Grigsby v. Purcell established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners in federal custody. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Grigsby v. Purcell, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass laws regulating private property rights between citizens of different states, as this would be an unconstitutional exercise of its powers. Furthermore, he noted that if such legislation were allowed then it could potentially expand into other areas where Congress has no constitutional authority over state matters. In conclusion, Justice Field argued that allowing such legislation would undermine both state sovereignty and individual liberty by expanding federal power beyond what is constitutionally permissible.