Loring and Another v. Palmer 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 the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison in Massachusetts. The prisoner had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue it. The Court also held that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used in federal courts. The Court further held that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal prison system. The Court's decision in Loring and Another v. Palmer established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that it can only be used in federal courts.

In the case of Loring & Another v. Palmer, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of Massachusetts law rather than federal law. He noted that the state court had not decided whether or not there was a contract between the parties and thus it should have been left to them to decide this issue. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were such a contract, it would be governed by federal common law as opposed to state laws since it involved citizens from different states and therefore fell under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. As such, Justice Field concluded that any judgment regarding this matter should be made according to federal common law instead of relying solely on Massachusetts statutes for guidance.