Halliday v. Hamilton was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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 prisoner, Halliday, was held in a federal prison in the state of Tennessee. Halliday 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the power to issue such writs was vested exclusively in the federal government, and that the state court had no authority to interfere with the federal government's power. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the power to issue such writs was vested exclusively in the federal government, and that the state court had no authority to interfere with the federal government's power. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to protect this right.

In Halliday v. Hamilton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties should be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract could not be enforced because it violated public policy and thus was voidable by either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion that contracts which violate public policy are unenforceable, he argued that there were no such violations present in this case as there was no evidence of fraud or illegality involved in making or executing the agreement. He further argued that if one party chose to breach their obligations under a validly formed contract then they should suffer any consequences for doing so rather than allowing them to escape liability simply because of some perceived violation of public policy.