Wilson v. Blair was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Wilson, was held in a federal prison in the state of Tennessee. Wilson sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 power, 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 protect this right. 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 power, 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 protect this right.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wilson v. Blair, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and disregarded precedent. He argued that a state's power to regulate its own elections should be respected by federal courts unless there is clear evidence of discrimination or violation of constitutional rights. In this case, he found no such evidence; rather, he believed that Congress had not intended for their legislation to interfere with states' ability to determine how they conduct their elections. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if Congress did intend for their laws to supersede state regulations on voting procedures then it would have been explicitly stated in those laws. As such, he concluded that the Court should defer to Tennessee's election rules as established by its legislature and reverse the decision below granting an injunction against enforcing them at issue here.