Pence v. Langdon 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Pence, was held in a federal prison in Indiana. Pence sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and Pence was released from prison. The United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the power to issue such writs was reserved to the federal government. 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 imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Pence v. Langdon established that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was reserved to the federal government, and that state courts did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that the federal government has the exclusive power to issue writs of habeas corpus.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pence v. Langdon, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of an earlier Supreme Court case and failed to consider relevant evidence from other states' laws. He argued that under Indiana law, which governed this dispute, it was clear that when two parties entered into a contract for land sale with no time limit specified for payment or delivery of title documents, then the seller had an obligation to deliver those documents within a reasonable amount of time after payment had been made. In this particular case, he noted that there had been no such agreement between the parties as to how long they would wait before delivering title documents and thus concluded that since more than three years had passed without any action taken by either party in regards to fulfilling their obligations under the contract, both sides should be released from its terms. Justice Field further argued against applying precedent set forth in another state's court ruling because he believed it did not accurately reflect what Indiana law required regarding contracts like these and could lead to unjust outcomes if applied too broadly across different jurisdictions.