Harkness v. Russell 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, William Harkness, was held in a federal prison in the state of Ohio. Harkness sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Harkness v. Russell established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Harkness v. Russell, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that under California law, a married woman had an absolute right to her separate property which could not be taken away by any act of her husband or his creditors without her consent. The fact that she had signed a deed transferring title of certain real estate did not change this rule as it was done without consideration and with no intention on either side for it to be binding. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were some legal basis for allowing the transfer of title from Mrs. Harkness' name into Mr. Russell's name, such action would still have been inequitable since Mrs. Harkness received nothing in return while Mr. Russell gained considerable benefit from having clear title over the land he already possessed through adverse possession prior to their marriage agreement being made public knowledge by him filing suit against them both after they separated two years later.. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that justice required reversing the judgment below and restoring Mrs .Harkness’ rights as owner of said property before its transfer into Mr .Russell’s name