Habich v. Folger was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Habich, was held in federal custody in the state of New York. Habich sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the court granted. The federal government then 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. 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. In conclusion, 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. 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.

In the case of Habich v. Folger, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus denied relief to the plaintiff. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there should be no interference with private contracts unless they are clearly contrary to public policy or violate some positive statute or constitutional provision. He argued that since there was no evidence presented showing any such violations in this particular case, then it should have been allowed to stand as valid and binding upon both parties involved.