Walker v. Reister 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, Walker, was held in a federal prison in the state of Maryland. Walker sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, 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 that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, 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 Walker v. Reister, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of state law and an incorrect application of federal constitutional principles. He argued that under California law, which governed this case, a married woman had no right to manage her own property without her husband's consent or control; therefore, she could not have conveyed any interest in real estate to another person without his approval. Furthermore, Justice Field asserted that since the conveyance at issue did not comply with state law requirements for such transactions involving married women it should be declared void by the court regardless of whether it violated any provision of the United States Constitution. In conclusion he stated that if Congress intended to protect individuals from being deprived of their rights through invalid contracts they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to courts to interpret what is meant by "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment.