Tracy v. Tuffly is a Supreme Court case from 1881 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 Tracy, was held in a federal prison in California. He 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 prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. 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 power to imprison individuals. The decision in Tracy v. Tuffly was significant because it established the principle 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 it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

In the dissenting opinion of Tracy v. Tuffly, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's interpretation of Title VII was too broad and would lead to an expansion of liability beyond what Congress had intended when it passed the law in 1964. He noted that while employers should be held accountable for their discriminatory practices, they should not be liable for actions taken by employees who are acting outside their scope of employment or authority. Furthermore, he argued that allowing a plaintiff to sue an employer based on conduct committed by its employee could have unintended consequences such as creating incentives for employers to monitor all aspects of their employees' behavior even if it is unrelated to work duties. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded that this interpretation went beyond what Congress had originally envisioned when passing Title VII and thus disagreed with the majority's ruling in favor of Tracy.