Hewitt v. Campbell was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state can constitutionally suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The case involved a prisoner, William Campbell, who was held in a state prison in Alabama. Campbell had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state of Alabama responded by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which prevented Campbell from having his case heard in court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Campbell, holding that the state of Alabama had violated the Constitution by suspending the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right that is protected by the Constitution, and that the state cannot suspend it without due process of law. The Court also held that the state must provide a meaningful opportunity for a prisoner to challenge the legality of his or her confinement. As a result of this decision, states are now required to provide prisoners with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of their confinement.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in HEWITT v. CAMPBELL, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that under existing laws of Alabama, a contract for personal services could not be enforced against an individual unless it had been made with their consent or knowledge; this was especially true when such contracts were made by agents on behalf of another person without any authority from them. Furthermore, he argued that even if there had been some form of authorization given to the agent in question, it would have only applied to those matters which fell within its scope - as no such authorization existed here, then Campbell should not be held liable for his actions. Finally Justice Field noted that while courts may sometimes enforce contracts entered into by minors or persons who are mentally incapacitated due to ignorance or inexperience (as is alleged here), they must do so cautiously and with great care - something which he felt had not occurred in this case.