Holland v. Chambers was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The case involved a man named William Chambers, who was convicted of murder in the state of Nebraska and sentenced to life in prison. Chambers filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional because the jury had been improperly selected. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the federal court did not have the power to interfere with the state's criminal justice system. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not intended to be used as a substitute for a direct appeal of a criminal conviction. The decision in Holland v. Chambers established that federal courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal habeas corpus law.

In the case of Holland v. Chambers, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have reversed its prior decision in Ex Parte Siebold (1880). He noted that while Congress had amended certain sections of the Revised Statutes since then, it had left other sections unchanged and thus did not intend to alter or overrule Siebold's holding. Furthermore, he argued that even if Congress had intended to change this law with their amendment, they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up for interpretation by the courts. In conclusion, Justice Harlan believed that there was no reason for this Court to reverse its earlier ruling on Ex Parte Siebold and therefore dissented from the majority opinion.