In Hecht v. Boughton, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide 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 petitioner, Hecht, was a prisoner in a federal prison in New York. He had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence in the federal prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to state prisoners, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison its own citizens. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to state prisoners, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison its own citizens. The Court's decision in Hecht v. Boughton established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners in federal prisons. The decision also reaffirmed the principle that the federal government has the power to imprison its own citizens, and that state courts cannot interfere with this power.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hecht v. Boughton, a case concerning the constitutionality of an act passed by the legislature of Wisconsin that allowed for certain public lands to be sold and used as security for bonds issued by counties or municipalities. Justice Field argued that this act was unconstitutional because it violated Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution which states that "No State shall…pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The Act in question impaired existing contracts between private parties and thus violated this clause. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there were no existing contracts affected by this law it would still violate Article I since it attempted to interfere with vested rights without due process and constituted a taking from one party without just compensation being provided to them. Finally he noted how such laws could lead to corruption as they allow governments too much power over private property interests which can then be abused for political gain rather than serving legitimate public purposes.