Rogers v. Ritter 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, John Rogers, was held in a federal prison in the District of Columbia. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 prerogative, 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 fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's exercise of its power. 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 prerogative, 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 fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's exercise of its power.

In the case of Rogers v. Ritter, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were unenforceable and should not be recognized by courts as valid agreements. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion regarding contracts made in violation of state laws, he disagreed with their reasoning for reaching this decision. He believed that if a contract is otherwise valid and enforceable under general principles of law then it should still be allowed to stand even if it violates some particular statute or ordinance; otherwise people would have no incentive to obey those laws since they could simply enter into private arrangements which circumvent them entirely.