In Taylor v. Thomas, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Taylor, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving his sentence in a state prison. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Taylor's release. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with a federal conviction. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy of last resort and should only be used when all other remedies have been exhausted. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Taylor and that his conviction in the federal court was valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Taylor v. Thomas, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that under the law of Louisiana, which governed this case, a slave owner had an absolute right to reclaim their runaway slaves from any state or territory within the United States. This right was established by both statute and common law in Louisiana prior to its admission into the Union as a State. As such, Justice Field believed it would have been unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation abrogating this pre-existing legal right without due process of law; however, he acknowledged that no such legislation had been passed at all - only an act allowing citizens of free states who held fugitive slaves from other states to bring them before federal courts for trial on habeas corpus proceedings. Thus, Justice Field concluded that since there were no laws prohibiting slave owners from recovering their runaways outside of habeas corpus proceedings (which did not apply here), then they still retained their rights under existing state laws and thus could recover them even if they crossed state lines while doing so.