Levy v. Stewart 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, Levy, was held in a federal prison in the state of Louisiana. Levy sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the state court granted. The federal government then 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 Levy v. Stewart, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and therefore was voidable by either party. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that contracts are binding regardless of any violations of state laws or public policy considerations unless they involve fraud or moral turpitude on the part of one party. He argued that allowing states to invalidate contracts based on their own laws would lead to chaos and uncertainty in commercial transactions as each state could have its own set of rules governing contractual obligations which would make interstate commerce difficult if not impossible. Furthermore, he believed that such a rule would give too much power to states over private citizens who may have entered into valid agreements without being aware they were violating some obscure statute somewhere else in the country.