Steever v. Rickman 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Steever, was held in a federal prison in the state of Tennessee. Steever 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 person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Steever v. Rickman established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Steever v. Rickman, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer acting within his lawful jurisdiction, as it would interfere with Congress' exclusive power over such matters. Furthermore, he noted that even if the state court did have some authority to enjoin federal officers from performing their duties, this particular case did not meet the requirements for granting such relief because there was no proof of irreparable harm or injury caused by Mr. Rickman's actions as Receiver of Public Moneys at Fort Smith Arkansas. Justice Field concluded by noting that while states may have concurrent powers with respect to certain matters involving public lands and property rights, they cannot exercise those powers so as to impede upon or conflict with any act of Congress which has been duly passed into law under its constitutional authority; thus making it clear why he believed the lower court’s ruling should be overturned on appeal.