Osborn v. Nicholson et al. 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 federal prisoner. The case arose when the petitioner, William Osborn, was arrested by federal officers in the state of Ohio and charged with violating the federal revenue laws. Osborn sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that the federal officers had no authority to arrest him. The state court granted the writ, and the federal officers appealed 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 federal prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court had no authority to interfere with the federal government's power to enforce its laws. 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. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court had no authority to interfere with the federal government's power to enforce its laws.

In Osborn v. Nicholson et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving federal officers and the United States government. The majority opinion held that it did not, but Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that while Congress has exclusive power over certain matters related to the national government, there are other areas of law where states have concurrent authority and can exercise their own judgment in deciding cases. In this instance, he believed that Ohio's courts were within their rights to adjudicate disputes between citizens of different states when they involved questions of title or possession arising under state laws; thus, he concluded that Ohio's courts had jurisdiction in this particular matter even though it concerned federal officers and interests of the United States government as well.