Hegler v. Faulkner 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, Hegler, was held in a federal prison in the state of Arkansas. Hegler 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 Hegler v. Faulkner 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 Hegler v. Faulkner, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. The case involved a dispute over title to land in California which had been granted by Mexico prior to its cession of California to the United States. The majority held that under Mexican law, title could not pass until after confirmation of the grant by a competent tribunal; however, Justice Field argued that this rule did not apply because it would be unjust for an innocent purchaser who acquired possession before confirmation of his grant from Mexico to lose his property rights due solely on account of delay or negligence on behalf of those responsible for confirming grants made during Mexican sovereignty. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had provided special legislation allowing claimants like Hegler who were unable to obtain confirmation through no fault of their own access other means for establishing their claims and thus should have been allowed relief here as well.