Sessions v. Johnson 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 who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Johnson, was held in federal custody in the state of Mississippi. Johnson sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the state court. Johnson then appealed 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. 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 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. 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 power to protect this right.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sessions v. Johnson, arguing that a state court's decision should not be overturned by the Supreme Court unless it is clearly wrong. He argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the Mississippi Supreme Court had erred in its interpretation of state law and thus, their ruling should stand. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were an error on behalf of the Mississippi court, it would still be up to them to correct it as they are more familiar with local laws than any other tribunal. In conclusion, Justice Field believed this case did not warrant review from the US Supreme Court because there was no clear mistake made by the lower court and therefore their ruling should remain intact.