Hopkins v. Orr 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, Hopkins, was held in a federal prison in the state of Ohio. The state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to the warden of the prison, Orr, ordering him to produce the prisoner in court. The warden refused to comply with the writ, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that could not be denied by the federal government. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a necessary tool for ensuring that prisoners were not held in prison without due process of law. The Court concluded that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus and that the warden was required to comply with the writ.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hopkins v. Orr, 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 property rights or contracts between individuals, as it did in this case. Furthermore, he noted that if such interference were allowed then Congress could effectively override any state law on any subject they deemed necessary for their own purposes without regard for constitutional limits on their powers. Justice Field concluded by noting his belief that allowing such an expansive interpretation of Congressional power would be detrimental both to individual liberty and states' rights protected by the Constitution.