Rucker v. Wheeler was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Rucker, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Rucker 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 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 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 interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. 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 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 interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Rucker v. Wheeler, a case concerning whether an individual had the right to bring suit against another for damages resulting from a breach of contract. Justice Field argued that although there was no dispute over the fact that one party had breached their contractual obligations, it did not necessarily follow that they were liable for damages as well. He reasoned that since contracts are based on mutual agreement and consideration between two parties, any action taken by either party must be done with full knowledge of its consequences and potential liabilities; thus, if one party breaches their contractual obligations without informing or consulting with the other beforehand then they should not be held responsible for any resulting damage caused to them. Furthermore, he noted that this would set a dangerous precedent whereby individuals could sue each other simply because one failed to fulfill their end of an agreement without being aware of all possible ramifications first - something which is both unfair and unreasonable according to Justice Field's interpretation of law at the time.