Marquez v. Bloom 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, Marquez, was held in a federal prison in California. Marquez sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. The Court's decision in Marquez v. Bloom 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 prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Marqueze v. Bloom, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be overturned. He argued that a state law which prohibited Chinese people from testifying against white citizens violated both the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article IV, Section 2 of the same document. According to Justice Field, these provisions guarantee all persons within a state equal protection under its laws regardless of race or color. As such, he believed that any law which discriminates on this basis is unconstitutional and must be struck down by courts as being void for violating fundamental rights granted by our nation's highest legal authority - The Constitution itself. Furthermore, he noted that even if California had not adopted an explicit prohibition on Chinese testimony but instead simply refused to enforce it when presented with evidence from them in court proceedings would still constitute discrimination based upon race or color since they are denied access to justice due solely to their racial identity rather than any other factor related to their credibility as witnesses or otherwise relevant considerations pertaining to their testimony. Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent by urging reversal of the lower court’s ruling so as not only protect individuals' constitutional rights but also ensure equality before our nation’s laws for all persons regardless of race or ethnicity