Osterman v. Baldwin 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 a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Osterman, was held in a federal prison in California and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The state court granted the writ, but the federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. 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 imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. 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 a federal prison. 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 imprison individuals.

In Osterman v. Baldwin, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving 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 violated Article III of the Constitution which grants exclusive federal judicial power in cases between citizens of different states. He further argued that Congress has not given any authority to the state courts to hear such cases and thus they should be heard by federal courts instead. Field concluded his dissent by stating that if Congress wanted to grant such authority then it must do so explicitly rather than allowing for an implied interpretation as done in this case.