In Meriwether v. Muhlenburg County Court, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The petitioner, Meriwether, was a prisoner in a federal prison in Kentucky. He had been convicted of a crime in the state of Tennessee and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. Meriwether sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court in Kentucky, claiming that his conviction in Tennessee was unconstitutional. 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to those who were unlawfully detained, and that Meriwether had been lawfully convicted and sentenced in Tennessee. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison, and that Meriwether's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Meriwether v. Muhlenburg County Court, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer acting under orders from his superior officers in Washington D.C., as it would be tantamount to interference with the operations of the United States government by one of its own states. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an injunction were permissible, it should not have been issued without giving notice or opportunity for hearing first - something which did not happen here due to lack of jurisdiction on behalf of Kentucky courts over federal officers like Meriwether who resided outside their boundaries. Finally, Justice Field noted how this case could set a dangerous precedent whereby any state court could interfere with any action taken by federal officials within their respective jurisdictions and thus undermine national sovereignty; therefore he concluded that while there may have been some wrong done towards Meriwether himself, this particular remedy was inappropriate given all other considerations at play here.