Hall v. Decuir 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 a federal prison. The case arose when a Louisiana state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison in Louisiana. The federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hall v. Decuir, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of Louisiana law. He argued that under Louisiana law, when an individual dies intestate (without leaving a will), their property is to be divided among all of their heirs equally regardless of whether they are legitimate or illegitimate children. The majority had held otherwise and found for the defendant because he was an illegitimate child; however Justice Field believed this interpretation violated both state and federal laws which prohibited discrimination against individuals due to illegitimacy. He further noted that if such discrimination were allowed it would create "a most unjust inequality" between those who were born out-of-wedlock and those who were not, as well as lead to other undesirable consequences like encouraging parents to marry solely for legal purposes rather than love or affection.