In United States v. Justice, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state court. The case arose when a prisoner, Justice, was convicted in a state court of larceny and sentenced to two years in prison. Justice then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, claiming that he had been denied due process of law in the state court. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of federal law, and since the state court had not violated any federal law, the federal court had no power to issue the writ. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of the Constitution, and since the state court had not violated the Constitution, the federal court had no power to issue the writ. The Court concluded that the federal court did not have the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state court, and thus Justice's petition was denied.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Justice, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to absurd consequences. He argued that under the Constitution, Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for an appeal from a judgment of acquittal by jury on any criminal charge. The power of granting such appeals rested solely with state legislatures and could not be delegated or transferred by Congress without violating both constitutional principles and common sense. Furthermore, he noted that if this were allowed it would open up all judgments of acquittal to review which could have serious implications for defendants' rights as well as public policy considerations related to double jeopardy protections against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that while Congress may have good intentions in passing such legislation they must still adhere strictly within their constitutionally prescribed limits when doing so otherwise risk undermining fundamental legal principles upon which our justice system is based upon.