Hartman v. Greenhow 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, Hartman, was held in a federal prison in Virginia. Hartman sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed 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 power, 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 interfere with the federal government's 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 writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, 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 interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hartman v. Greenhow, arguing that the court should not have reversed a decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia. He argued that it was improper for this court to interfere with state decisions on matters concerning property rights and title unless there is an obvious violation of federal law or constitutional right. In this case, he believed that no such violations had been established by either party and thus felt it inappropriate for the US Supreme Court to overturn a ruling made by a state supreme court. He also noted that if any errors were committed in deciding upon title issues, they could be corrected through other legal remedies available under Virginia law without requiring intervention from the US Supreme Court.