Palmer v. Arthur was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Palmer, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Palmer sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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. 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 remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Palmer v. Arthur, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a key provision of the Bankruptcy Act of 1867. He argued that under this act, debtors were not required to surrender all their property upon filing for bankruptcy; rather, they could retain certain items such as clothing and household furniture necessary for everyday life. The majority opinion held otherwise, requiring debtors to give up all their assets regardless of necessity or value. Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and believed it was contrary to both congressional intent and public policy considerations. He further noted that if Congress intended such a strict interpretation then it should have been more explicit in its language when drafting the statute instead of leaving room for ambiguity on an issue so important to individuals facing financial hardship. In conclusion he urged Congress to clarify its intentions regarding what is exempt from seizure during bankruptcy proceedings so as not to leave citizens vulnerable without any means by which they can support themselves or their families while attempting recovery from insolvency