Hale v. Finch 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 the petitioner, William Hale, was arrested and held in federal custody in the state of Tennessee. Hale sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. The state court granted the writ, and 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 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 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 the rights of individuals. 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 individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hale v. Finch, arguing that the majority had misconstrued a provision of the California Constitution and failed to consider relevant case law. He argued that under prior decisions by both state and federal courts, it was clear that an individual's right to vote could not be taken away without due process of law. The majority had held otherwise, finding no violation of due process when a voter was removed from the rolls for failing to pay poll taxes or other fees associated with voting. Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation, noting that such fees were tantamount to taxation on voting rights and thus unconstitutional as they denied individuals their fundamental right to participate in elections without being subject to financial burdens imposed by government entities. He concluded his dissent by emphasizing how important it is for all citizens regardless of economic status have access equal access at the ballot box so as not "to impair its purity."