In the case of Scull v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The petitioner, Scull, was a prisoner in a state prison in Pennsylvania. He had been convicted of a crime in the state court and was serving his sentence. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody. The Court further held that the federal court did not have the power to review the constitutionality of a state court conviction. The Court concluded that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody and that the federal court did not have the power to review the constitutionality of a state court conviction.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in SCULL v. UNITED STATES, arguing that the court had erred in its decision to uphold a conviction for an offense not specified by Congress. He argued that it was unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws which were so vague and uncertain as to leave individuals without knowledge of what conduct is prohibited or punishable under them. Justice Field further stated that if such laws were allowed, then any act could be punished at the discretion of a jury and would lead to arbitrary convictions with no basis in law or justice. In conclusion, he asserted that due process requires clear definitions of offenses before they can be enforced against citizens and thus this conviction should have been overturned on constitutional grounds.