In James v. McCormack, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a person who was being held in federal custody. The petitioner, James, was being held in federal custody in the District of Columbia on charges of violating the federal Neutrality Act. The state court had issued a writ of habeas corpus to James, ordering him to be brought before the court to answer the charges. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to enforce its laws. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for the enforcement of federal laws, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's enforcement of its laws. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and that the writ was properly denied. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to enforce its laws.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in James v. McCormack, arguing that Congress had no authority to exclude a sitting member of the House of Representatives from taking his seat. He argued that Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution gave each house exclusive power to judge its members' qualifications and elections; thus, it was up to the House itself—not Congress as a whole—to decide whether or not an individual should be allowed to take their seat. Furthermore, he noted that if such power were granted to Congress then they could potentially use it for partisan gain by excluding individuals based on political differences rather than actual qualifications or election results. In conclusion, Justice Field stated that while he did not condone any unlawful acts committed by Mr. James during his campaign for office nor approve of them being overlooked without consequence; nevertheless he believed this case presented an opportunity for judicial review which should have been taken advantage of in order to protect constitutional rights and prevent future abuses from occurring within our government system.