Hartranft v. Oliver was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, Hartranft, was arrested and held in federal custody in Pennsylvania. Hartranft then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, seeking to be released from federal custody. 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is 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 is a fundamental right, and that the federal government has 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is 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 Hartranft v. Oliver, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that it had been long-established law since 1845 that a state court could not issue a writ of error for any cause arising out of its own jurisdiction unless authorized by statute or some other form of legislative authority. The majority opinion disregarded this principle and allowed such writs without any statutory authorization, which Justice Field found troubling because it gave state courts more power than they were constitutionally entitled to have. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to issue these writs without proper authorization would create confusion as different states might have different rules regarding their issuance and enforcement. Finally, he argued that if Congress wanted states to be able to issue these types of writs then it should pass legislation authorizing them rather than relying on judicial interpretation alone.