Trask v. Maguire 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Trask, was held in a federal prison in California and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. 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 the writ of habeas corpus. 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 Court's decision in Trask v. Maguire established 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 decision also established 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Trask v. Maguire, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had not intended for the court to have jurisdiction over this case, as it did not involve any dispute between citizens of different states or foreign countries. Furthermore, he noted that even if Congress had intended for such cases to be heard by the Supreme Court, they should only be done so when there is an actual controversy between two parties; here there was no real dispute since both sides agreed on all material facts and were simply asking for different interpretations of law. Finally, Justice Field warned against allowing too much federal control over state matters which could potentially lead to a “consolidation” of power at the national level instead of leaving issues up to individual states as originally envisioned by our founding fathers.