Lukins v. Aird 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, John Lukins, was held in a federal prison in the District of Columbia. Lukins sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. Lukins then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 power to issue a 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 federal government had the exclusive power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Lukins v. Aird established that the federal government had exclusive 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 idea that the federal government has exclusive authority over matters related to the imprisonment of individuals.

In the case of Lukins v. Aird, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law and overlooked important facts. He noted that under California state law, an executor was not liable for debts incurred by his predecessor unless it could be proven that they were aware of such debts at the time they assumed their role as executor. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. Lukins knew about any debt when he became executor; therefore, according to California state law, he should not have been held responsible for it. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if Mr. Lukins had known about this debt prior to becoming executor - which again there is no evidence suggesting - then still only those creditors who presented claims against him within one year after his appointment would be entitled to payment from him as per California's statute of limitations on creditor claims against an estate's administrator or executors . As such ,Justice Field concluded by arguing strongly against holding Mr. Lukin liable for any amount due on a claim made more than one year after his appointment as Executor and requested reversal of judgement in favor of plaintiff Aird .