Rives v. Duke 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, Rives, was held in a federal prison in Virginia and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the 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 Rives v. Duke established 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 decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that the federal government had the power to protect.

In the case of Rives v. Duke, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted an injunction against defendant William Duke for his alleged infringement on plaintiff's patent rights. He argued that there was no evidence to suggest that Duke had infringed upon any of Rives' patents and thus granting an injunction would be unjustified. Furthermore, Field noted that even if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Duke had indeed infringed upon one or more of Rives' patents, such action did not necessarily warrant injunctive relief as damages were available through other legal remedies. In conclusion, Justice Field believed the decision to grant an injunction was premature and unnecessary given the lack of evidence presented by both parties in this case.