Shippen v. Bowen was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, Shippen, was arrested and held in federal custody in the District of Columbia. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, seeking to be released from federal custody. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia granted the writ, and the United States Attorney appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia 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 federal government had the exclusive power to issue the writ. In conclusion, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Shippen v. Bowen, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that Congress had not intended for a patentee to be able to sue an infringer without first obtaining a reissue of their original patent from the Commissioner of Patents. The Patent Act provided no authority for such suits, and it would have been up to Congress if they wanted such suits allowed under any circumstances. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that allowing these types of lawsuits could lead to abuse by unscrupulous inventors who might try and use them as leverage against potential competitors or customers who were infringing on their patents without actually having valid claims themselves. Finally, he noted that even if there was some legal basis for allowing this type of suit, it should only be done when all other remedies available through proper channels had failed or been exhausted before resorting to litigation in court.