In Johnson & Another v. Wilkins, 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 federal officer. The case involved a dispute between two former slaves, Johnson and Wilkins, who had been emancipated by the United States government. Johnson had been appointed as a federal officer in the Freedmen's Bureau, while Wilkins had been appointed as a state court judge. Wilkins had issued a writ of habeas corpus to Johnson, ordering him to appear before the state court. Johnson argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as he was a federal officer and the writ was issued by a state court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to a federal officer. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ to a federal officer. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's authority to protect the rights of its citizens. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to a federal officer.

Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in the case of Johnson & Another v. Wilkins, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an incorrect interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that while it is true that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, this does not necessarily mean they are citizens of a particular state. The amendment itself states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction" should be considered citizens; however, Justice Harlan argued that being subject to federal authority did not automatically make one a citizen of any particular state as well. In his view, citizenship could only be conferred by individual states through their own laws and regulations regarding who can become a citizen within their borders. Therefore he concluded that since Congress had no power to confer state citizenship upon anyone without first obtaining consent from each individual state government involved, Mr Wilkins' claim for relief must fail because he was never made an actual citizen under any specific State law prior to filing suit against Johnson & another party