Nougue v. Clapp 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 a prisoner, Nougue, was held in a federal prison in Massachusetts. Nougue sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority 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 person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Nougue v. Clapp established that state courts do not have the 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 principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Nougue v. Clapp, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that the court had no authority under existing law to set aside an act of Congress on constitutional grounds, as it had done in this case by invalidating a provision of the Bankruptcy Act. Furthermore, he noted that such action could only be taken if there were clear evidence that Congress had acted unconstitutionally; however, he found none here since both parties agreed with respect to all material facts and circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy proceedings at issue. In conclusion, Justice Field warned against allowing courts "to interfere with legislative acts upon mere doubts or conjectures," noting that doing so would undermine public confidence in government institutions and create chaos within society itself.