Reilly v. Golding 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, Reilly, was held in a federal prison in New York and sought a writ of habeas corpus from a state court. 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 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 protect this right. The Court's decision in Reilly v. Golding established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the power to protect the fundamental right of habeas corpus.

In Reilly v. Golding, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The majority opinion held that the contract was valid and enforceable because of its good faith nature and lack of fraud or misrepresentation on either side. However, Justice Swayne dissented from this decision, arguing that contracts must have some form of consideration in order for them to be legally binding. He argued that if there is no exchange of value between the parties involved then there can be no legal obligation created by such an agreement; thus making it unenforceable in court. Furthermore, he stated that allowing agreements without any form of consideration would open up opportunities for fraud and abuse as well as create uncertainty within contractual relationships which could lead to chaos in business transactions across the country.