In Williams v. Jackson, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Williams, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving his sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, not state prisoners. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, not state prisoners.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Williams v. Jackson, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to "grave consequences." He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or not. Furthermore, he noted that if one party breaches their obligations under the contract then they are liable for damages as a result of their breach. In this case, Justice Field believed that there was sufficient evidence presented by Williams showing his right to recover on his claim against Jackson and thus should have been allowed relief from the court. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating that while contracts may sometimes be unfair or inequitable due to unforeseen circumstances at the time of execution; however such contracts must still be respected and enforced according to their terms unless otherwise provided for in law or equity.