Solomon v. Arthur 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 a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Arthur, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Arthur sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. The Court's decision in Solomon v. Arthur established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also clarified the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, and established that it could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement.

In the case of Solomon v. Arthur, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority decision. He believed that there was no evidence to support the conclusion reached by the majority and instead felt that it should have been decided in favor of Solomon. He noted that under California law, an executor is not liable for debts incurred prior to his appointment unless he has assumed them or agreed to pay them himself; since neither had occurred here, Arthur could not be held responsible for any debt owed by Solomon's estate. Furthermore, Field argued that even if such a liability did exist under California law, it would still be invalid as it violated Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws impairing contracts made before their enactment. Therefore, Justice Field concluded with his dissent and urged reversal of judgment in favor of Solomon due to lack of sufficient evidence and constitutional violation on behalf of California state law.