In Hill v. Mendenhall, the United States Supreme Court considered 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 petitioner, Hill, was a prisoner in the custody of the United States Marshal, and he sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The United States argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ, as the prisoner was in federal custody. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court lacked the power to issue the writ. The Court further noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court lacked 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 lacked the power to issue the writ.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hill v. Mendenhall, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass legislation which interfered with state laws regarding contracts between individuals, as this case did. Furthermore, he noted that such interference could have far-reaching implications for other areas of law if it were allowed here. Finally, Justice Field stated his belief that allowing Congress to interfere with state contract law would be an unconstitutional extension of its powers beyond what was intended by the framers when they wrote the Constitution.