In Ruckman v. Bergholz, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide 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 Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The case arose when the petitioner, Ruckman, was convicted of a crime in the state of Ohio and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a federal prison. Ruckman then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, seeking to be released from the federal prison. The state court granted the writ and ordered Ruckman to be released. The United States 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 is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal prison system. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to those who are in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Since Ruckman was not in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. Therefore, the United States Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Ruckman.

In Ruckman v. Bergholz, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided in a different state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce and thus should be able to determine when suits between citizens of different states can be heard; secondly, he argued that even if Congress does not have such authority then it is up to each individual State's legislature or courts to determine their own rules for determining when they will hear cases involving citizens from other States. He concluded by stating that since no federal law prohibited this particular suit from being heard in Pennsylvania's courts then they should be allowed to exercise their discretion as they see fit and allow it proceed there.