Harmon v. Adams 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, Harmon, was arrested by federal officers and held in federal custody. Harmon then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the state 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 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 a prisoner. 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 its citizens. 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 a prisoner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Harmon v. Adams, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a key provision of the 1872 Mining Act and thus reached an incorrect conclusion. He argued that when Congress passed this law, it intended to grant miners exclusive rights to mine on public lands for valuable minerals such as gold and silver. The majority's interpretation of "valuable deposits" was too broad; according to Justice Field, it would allow anyone with any kind of mineral deposit—even if they were not particularly valuable—to claim exclusive mining rights on public land without paying anything for them. This could lead to large areas being monopolized by individuals or companies who did not pay anything for their claims, which would be unfair both economically and politically since those who paid nothing would have more power than those who paid something for their claims. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that allowing people to acquire these kinds of exclusive rights without payment could also lead to environmental damage due to over-mining or other activities associated with mining operations because there is no incentive for miners not do so if they are getting everything free from the government anyway. In conclusion, he believed that Congress never intended its legislation granting miners exclusive rights on public lands should be interpreted so broadly as suggested by the majority decision in this case