In the case of Parmelee v. Simpson, the Supreme Court of the United States 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, Parmelee, was arrested by federal officers and held in federal custody. Parmelee then sought a writ of habeas corpus from a state court, which the state court granted. The federal officers refused to obey the writ, and the state court then issued a writ of attachment against the federal officers. The federal officers then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. 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 prerogative, 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 state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's 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 prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner.

In the case of Parmelee v. Simpson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against a resident of that same state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that states should be allowed to exercise their own judicial powers in cases involving citizens from other states as long as they do not conflict with federal laws or treaties. He argued further that if Congress has given authority for one State’s courts to hear suits between its citizens and those from other States then it would be wrong for any other State’s courts to deny them similar rights simply because they are foreign citizens. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing each State's courts equal access in these types of cases would promote justice and fairness among all parties involved regardless of their citizenship status or residence location within the United States.