Lansdale v. Daniels was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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, Lansdale, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Lansdale 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 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 Lansdale v. Daniels established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also clarified the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, and established that it could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lansdale v. Daniels, arguing that the majority had failed to consider important facts and evidence presented by both parties. He argued that the plaintiff's case was not adequately considered because it was based on a contract between two individuals rather than an act of Congress or state law. Furthermore, he noted that there were several inconsistencies in the testimony given by witnesses for both sides which should have been taken into account when deciding this case. He concluded his dissent by stating that if all relevant facts and evidence had been properly weighed, then a different outcome may have resulted from this decision.