Ray v. Norseworthy 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, William Ray, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Ray 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 Ray v. Norseworthy, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that a court of equity should not interfere with an execution sale unless it is clear that there has been fraud or mistake on behalf of the purchaser at such sale. In this case, he noted, no evidence had been presented to suggest any wrongdoing by either party involved in the transaction; thus, he concluded, there was no basis for granting relief from foreclosure as requested by Ray. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that even if some wrong had occurred during the proceedings leading up to foreclosure—which again he did not believe had happened—the remedy sought would still be inappropriate because it would essentially undo all prior transactions related to this property and place its title back into dispute after years of being settled without issue. As such, Justice Field maintained his position against interfering with an otherwise valid execution sale absent proof of fraud or mistake on behalf of one or more parties involved in said transaction.