In Jackson v. Roby and Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Jackson, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment. He then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only in federal courts, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the judgment of a federal court. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to those who are in custody, and that Jackson was no longer in custody at the time he sought the writ. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case, and that Jackson's conviction was valid. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only in federal courts, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the judgment of a federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jackson v. Roby and Another, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent. He argued that a state court should not be allowed to decide whether or not a federal statute is constitutional, as this would violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had intended for states to have such authority then it would have been explicitly stated in the legislation itself. Justice Field also noted that even if there were some ambiguity regarding congressional intent on this issue, it should be resolved in favor of upholding federal law over state law due to its supremacy under Article VI of the Constitution. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing states to determine constitutionality of federal statutes violated both established legal principles and Congressional intent and thus should not be permitted by any court regardless of jurisdiction.