In OLCOTT v. BYNUM et al., the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide 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, OLCOTT, was arrested by federal officers and held in federal custody. OLCOTT then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, seeking to be released from federal custody. The state court issued the writ, and the federal officers refused to comply. The federal officers then appealed the state court's decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the 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 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 this right. In conclusion, 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the 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 detain a prisoner.

In OLCOTT v. BYNUM et al., the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that it should be up to Congress to decide which cases can be heard in federal courts. He noted that Article III of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority over such matters, and he argued that allowing state courts to hear these types of disputes would lead to confusion and inconsistency among the various jurisdictions. Furthermore, he contended that if parties are allowed to choose their own forum for dispute resolution then they could manipulate proceedings by selecting more favorable venues or judges who may not be impartial or knowledgeable about certain issues at hand. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that only Congress has the power under Article III of the Constitution “to prescribe rules for determining controversies between citizens” in different states.