In re Burdett was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Burdett, was arrested in the state of New York and charged with a federal crime. He was then transferred to a federal prison in Massachusetts. Burdett then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court of New York, seeking to be released from federal custody. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and that the state court did not have the power to determine the legality of a federal prisoner's detention. 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 in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to detain a prisoner.

In re Burdett was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in which the court had to decide whether or not an individual could be held liable for debts incurred prior to their bankruptcy. The majority opinion of the court found that individuals were responsible for any debt they accrued before filing for bankruptcy, and thus could still be held liable even after being discharged from such debts through a bankruptcy proceeding. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that it would create an unfair situation where creditors would have more power than debtors when it came to collecting on pre-bankruptcy debts. He argued that allowing creditors to collect on these types of debts would lead them into taking advantage of those who are already struggling financially and unable to pay off their obligations due to financial hardship. Furthermore, he argued that Congress should have been given more authority over deciding how bankruptcies are handled rather than leaving it up solely up to courts as is currently done with this decision.