Tate v. Norton 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, William Tate, was arrested and convicted in the state of Tennessee for the crime of larceny. Tate then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, claiming that he was being held in federal custody without due process of law. 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority 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 exercise of that 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority 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 exercise of that right.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Tate v. Norton, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that a state cannot be held liable for damages caused by its officers acting outside of their authority or beyond their jurisdiction, as it is not responsible for such acts. Furthermore, he noted that if states were held liable under these circumstances it would open them up to numerous lawsuits from individuals seeking compensation for any wrongs committed against them by state officials while on duty. Finally, Justice Field argued that allowing this type of suit could potentially create a conflict between federal and state laws since Congress has no power over individual states' actions unless expressly granted by the Constitution itself.