Hardy v. Harbin 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Hardy, was held in a federal prison in Texas and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. 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 the writ of habeas corpus. 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 imprison 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 imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Hardy v. Harbin established 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 decision also established 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 imprison individuals.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Hardy v. Harbin, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound public policy. He argued that a contract should not be enforced if it is against public policy or would lead to an absurd result, as he believed this case did. He noted that contracts of this nature had been held void by other courts because they were deemed immoral and against good conscience; thus, he felt strongly that such a contract should not be enforced here either. Furthermore, Justice Harlan pointed out how enforcing such a contract could potentially create more problems than it solved due to its potential for abuse by unscrupulous parties who might take advantage of vulnerable individuals with little bargaining power or knowledge of their rights under the law. In conclusion, Justice Harlan urged his colleagues on the Court to reconsider their ruling and instead find in favor of Mr. Hardy so as to protect those who are most vulnerable from being taken advantage of through unfair contracts like these which are clearly against public policy and morality alike