Vannevar v. Bryant 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 Vannevar Bryant, a prisoner in a federal prison, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Arkansas. 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 remedy for individuals who were being held in violation of the Constitution, and that the state court did not have the authority to determine whether the federal government was violating the Constitution. 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 who was being 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.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Vannevar v. Bryant, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a party who has been injured by another's negligence is entitled to recover damages for their losses, even if they are not able to prove all of the elements necessary for an action at law or equity. In this case, he argued that there was sufficient evidence presented to establish a prima facie case of negligence on behalf of Bryant which would entitle Vannevar to recover damages from him regardless of whether or not she could prove all other elements required for an action at law or equity. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that it had long been established precedent in many states throughout the country as well as in England prior to American independence which allowed such recovery without proof beyond what had already been provided here by Vannevar against Bryant. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent with a call for reversal so as to allow her recovery under these circumstances and restore justice according to existing legal principles and precedents both within America and abroad before its independence from Britain.