Langdeau v. Hanes 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, Langdeau, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. Langdeau 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 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 remedy, 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 remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Langdeau v. Hanes 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 principle that state courts do not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Langdeau v. Hanes, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that although it is true that a contract must be performed according to its terms, this does not mean that all of its provisions are binding upon both parties; rather, only those which are reasonable and just can be enforced. In this case, he believed the provision requiring payment for services rendered by one party before any compensation could be received from another was unreasonable and unjust because there had been no agreement between them as to how much each would receive in return for their respective services. Furthermore, he argued that such a clause would have an adverse effect on commerce since it would discourage people from entering into contracts with others if they knew they might never get paid for their work or goods provided. As such, Justice Field concluded that the court should reverse its ruling and find in favor of Langdeau instead of upholding Hanes' position on this matter.