Littlefield v. Perry 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 federal custody. The case arose when Littlefield, a prisoner in federal custody, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Texas. The state court granted the writ, and the United States 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Littlefield v. Perry, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that a contract for personal services is not assignable under any circumstances, as it would be impossible to transfer such an agreement without destroying its essential character. Furthermore, he noted that if contracts of this nature were allowed to be assigned, then employers could easily evade their obligations by assigning them away or transferring them without notice or consent from either party involved in the original agreement. Finally, Justice Field asserted that allowing assignments of these types of contracts would lead to great uncertainty and confusion among parties entering into agreements with each other since they could never know whether their contractual rights had been transferred away without their knowledge or consent.