Veach v. Rice 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, Veach, was held in a federal prison in Indiana 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 Veach v. Rice 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 Veach v. Rice, stating that he could not agree with the majority's decision to reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois. He argued that it was clear from both state and federal law that a contract between two parties must be made in good faith and without fraud or misrepresentation for it to be legally binding. In this case, there had been evidence presented at trial which showed that Rice had acted in bad faith when entering into his agreement with Veach by making false representations about his ability to pay back any money loaned to him. Justice Field believed this should have been sufficient grounds for upholding the original verdict against Rice since he had clearly violated an essential element of their contract. Furthermore, Justice Field noted how there were other issues raised during trial which indicated further misconduct on behalf of Rice such as failing to disclose certain facts regarding his financial situation prior to signing their agreement; all these factors combined meant that justice would only truly be served if Veach’s claim was upheld rather than reversed as decided by the majority opinion.