Mussina v. Cavazos 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 a prisoner, Antonio Mussina, was arrested by federal authorities in Texas and held in federal custody. The state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to the federal authorities, ordering them to produce Mussina in court. The federal authorities refused to comply with the writ, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Supreme Court ultimately 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 federal government had the exclusive power to protect that right. As such, the 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.

In Mussina v. Cavazos, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which the cause of action arose outside of the state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, as there was no provision for such actions under either federal or state law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that states should be able to exercise their own sovereign power when deciding matters within their borders even if they involve parties who are not residents of the same state. He reasoned that since all states have similar laws regarding contracts and torts arising out of transactions occurring within their boundaries, then those laws should apply regardless of where any party resides. Furthermore, he maintained that allowing each individual state to make its own decisions on these matters would promote uniformity among them while still respecting each one's right to self-governance.