In Jones v. Habersham, 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 prisoner held in federal custody. The petitioner, Jones, was a prisoner in the custody of the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Georgia. He had been convicted of a crime in the state court and was serving a sentence in the federal prison. Jones 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 to a prisoner held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to those who were in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jones v. Habersham, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and should be overturned. He argued that a state court could not constitutionally issue an injunction to prevent a federal court from exercising its jurisdiction over a case, as this would amount to interference by one branch of government into another branch's affairs. Furthermore, he noted that if such injunctions were allowed then it would allow states to interfere with federal proceedings whenever they disagreed with them or wanted to protect their own interests. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that allowing such injunctions would undermine the authority of Congress and lead to chaos within our system of government.