In the case of Savin v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a state prison. The petitioner, Savin, argued that the federal court had the power to issue the writ because the state prison was under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of federal law, and since the state prison was not under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the writ could not be issued. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of federal law, and since the state prison was not under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the writ could not be issued. The Court concluded that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the court should not have granted a writ of error to review the decision of the Supreme Court of California, as it was based on an interpretation and application of state law which did not conflict with any federal statute or constitutional provision. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence presented to show that petitioner's rights were violated by any act done under color of state authority. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if Congress had intended for such cases to be reviewed by this court, they would have provided for it in their statutes; however, since they did not do so, he believed it was inappropriate for them to grant a writ in this instance.