In re Loney is a Supreme Court case from 1883 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, John Loney, was held in a federal prison in California after being convicted of a federal crime. Loney sought a writ of habeas corpus from the California Supreme Court, arguing that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. The California Supreme Court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the California Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to protect this right. In re Loney is an important Supreme Court case because it established the principle that the federal government has exclusive authority over the writ of habeas corpus. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the exclusive power to protect the fundamental rights of individuals.

In the Supreme Court case of In re Loney, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws regulating bankruptcy proceedings in the territories because it was not listed as one of their enumerated powers under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he believed that if Congress did have such power, then they should be able to regulate all aspects of bankruptcy proceedings and not just certain parts like this law attempted to do. He also noted that there were already state laws governing bankruptcies which would be superseded by this federal law if it were allowed to stand. Finally, he argued that allowing Congress to pass such a law could lead them down a slippery slope where they could eventually take away states’ rights altogether and create an oppressive national government with too much control over individual citizens’ lives.