In re Paschal is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal court. The case involved a man named Paschal, who was arrested by federal authorities in Texas for violating the Neutrality Act. Paschal was then held in federal custody in New Orleans. The state court of Texas issued a writ of habeas corpus to the federal court in New Orleans, ordering them to release Paschal. The federal court refused to comply, arguing that the state court had no authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the federal court, holding that the state court had no authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court had no authority to interfere with the federal court's jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's exercise of that right. The Court's decision established the principle that state courts cannot issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts.

In Re Paschal is a case that deals with the issue of whether or not an emancipated slave was entitled to compensation for his labor. The majority opinion held that, since slavery had been abolished in the United States, no one could be legally compelled to work without pay and therefore Paschal was not entitled to any compensation. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that it failed to take into account the fact that slaves were forced into involuntary servitude by their masters and thus should have some form of redress for their years of unpaid labor. He argued further that if such individuals were denied any recompense then they would essentially remain enslaved even after emancipation as they would still be unable to receive fair wages for their work due to past injustices committed against them. In conclusion, Justice Field believed strongly in providing reparations for those who had suffered under slavery and felt strongly enough about it so as to dissent from what he saw as an unjust ruling denying these people justice.