Lamb v. Davenport 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Lamb, was held in a federal prison in the state of Arkansas. Lamb sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 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 a federal prison. 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 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 power to protect this right. In conclusion, 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 a federal prison. 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 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 power to protect this right.

In Lamb v. Davenport, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a federal officer in order to prevent them from executing their duties under the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that such action by the state court was unconstitutional and thus not within its power or authority. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that while it is true that states cannot interfere with matters of national concern, they are still entitled to protect their citizens’ rights when those rights are threatened by federal officers acting outside of their constitutional powers. He further stated that if Congress has failed to provide adequate remedies for violations of individual rights then it falls upon the states as guardians of liberty and justice to step in and fill any gaps left open by Congress' inaction. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that states should be allowed some degree of control over how federal officers execute their duties so long as these actions do not conflict with congressional legislation or violate any other provisions set forth in the Constitution itself