Jeffrey v. Moran was a United States Supreme Court case 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, Jeffrey, was held in a federal prison in Massachusetts. Jeffrey sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. The state court granted the writ, and Jeffrey was released from prison. The federal government then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court agreed with the federal government, ruling 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 power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Jeffrey v. Moran established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the ultimate authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jeffrey v. Moran, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both of them, regardless of whether one party has received any benefit from it or not. Furthermore, he stated that if a party to a contract does not receive what they are entitled to under its terms then they have an action for damages against the other party who failed to fulfill their obligations under said agreement. In this case, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence presented by plaintiff showing defendant had breached his contractual obligation and thus owed him damages as compensation for such breach; therefore reversing the lower court’s ruling would be appropriate in order to provide justice for plaintiff and uphold principles of law which protect those who enter into contracts with others expecting them to abide by their terms.