Hill v. Harding 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 federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Hill, was held in federal custody in the state of Arkansas. Hill sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the court granted. The federal government then 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 was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain prisoners. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain prisoners. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hill v. Harding, arguing that the court should not have granted a writ of error to review the decision of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that since there was no federal question involved and no constitutional issue at stake, it was inappropriate for this case to be heard by a federal court. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been an issue involving state law or procedure which could have been reviewed by a federal court, such review would still be improper because Congress had not authorized any such action in its Judiciary Act. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained that granting this writ of error exceeded both congressional authority and judicial power under Article III of the Constitution; therefore it should be reversed and dismissed without prejudice to either party's rights or interests.