Van Norden v. Benner 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 Van Norden, a prisoner in a federal prison, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Pennsylvania. 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 protect this right. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right.

In the case of Van Norden v. Benner, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He noted that while it is true that an agreement between two parties must be strictly construed according to its terms, this does not mean that one party can unilaterally alter or modify those terms without the other party's consent. In this particular case, Justice Field believed there was sufficient evidence to show that Van Norden had agreed with Benner on certain modifications regarding their contract and thus should have been held liable for them as well. Furthermore, he argued against allowing one party to benefit from his own wrongdoings by using technicalities such as statutes of limitations or laches in order to avoid liability when they are clearly at fault for breaching a contract. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that justice would best be served if all parties were held accountable for their actions regardless of any technical defenses they may attempt to raise in court proceedings.