In Turner v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court 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, Turner, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving a sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, not state prisoners. The Court's decision in Turner v. Smith established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners convicted in federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Turner v. Smith, arguing that the court should not have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that there was no evidence to suggest that any fraud had been committed by either party and thus it would be improper for a federal court to interfere with a state's ruling on such matters. Furthermore, he noted that even if some form of fraud had occurred, it could not be proven as neither party provided sufficient proof or testimony to support their claims. As such, Justice Field concluded that since there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing and since this case involved issues related solely to state law, then it would be inappropriate for a federal court to intervene in this matter and reverse the decision made by California's highest court.