Thompson v. Hubbard was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 the petitioner, Thompson, was convicted of a crime in the state of Arkansas and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a federal prison. Thompson then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Thompson's release from federal custody. The federal government then appealed the state court's decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court lacked the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Supreme Court agreed with the federal government, holding that the state court lacked 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 lacked the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the state court's decision was in conflict with the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate the federal prison system. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court lacked 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 lacked the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also noted that the state court's decision was in conflict with the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate the federal prison system.

In Thompson v. Hubbard, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced by one of the parties after it had been repudiated by the other party. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus denied relief to the plaintiff in this case. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that since both parties had already partially performed their obligations under the contract, it should be enforced as written despite its subsequent repudiation by one of them. He argued further that if courts refused to enforce such contracts then they would encourage people to break their agreements without consequence and undermine public confidence in contractual arrangements generally.