Walker v. Johnson 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 held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Walker, was held in federal custody in the state of Georgia. Walker sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the state court judge, Johnson. Walker then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the state court's decision was not binding on the federal government, and that the federal government could still choose to release the prisoner if it so desired. 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 held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Walker v. Johnson, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a provision of the Constitution and disregarded an act of Congress passed to implement it. He argued that Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution grants Congress authority to dispose of public lands for "the common benefit" and not just for revenue purposes as was suggested by the majority opinion. Furthermore, he noted that this power is further reinforced by an Act of Congress which states explicitly that such land may be disposed off with or without consideration depending on what would best serve "the common benefit." Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how important it is to adhere strictly to constitutional provisions when interpreting them rather than relying on general principles or rules derived from other sources.