Terry v. Hatch 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 person who was being held in custody by a federal marshal. The case arose when a federal marshal arrested a man named Terry in the state of California and held him in custody. Terry then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that he was being held unlawfully. The state court granted the writ and ordered the marshal to release Terry. The federal marshal appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a case involving a federal marshal. The Supreme Court agreed with the marshal, ruling that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a case involving a federal marshal. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a power reserved to the federal government, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power. The decision in Terry v. Hatch established that state courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in cases involving federal marshals. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the power of state courts to issue writs of habeas corpus.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Terry v. Hatch, arguing that the court should not have granted a writ of error to review the decision of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that this case did not meet any of the criteria for granting such a writ and was therefore an improper use of judicial power by allowing it to be heard before them. Furthermore, he noted that there were no federal questions raised in this case as all issues revolved around state law and thus could only be decided by a state court. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if they had allowed this appeal then it would set precedent for other cases which may involve more serious constitutional issues than those present here and thus should not be done lightly or without due consideration from Congress on how best to proceed with appeals from state courts going forward.