Wilson v. Hoss was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, 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 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority 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 power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wilson v. Hoss, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass laws regulating labor conditions on private property, as it had done with this case. Furthermore, he noted that such an action would be unconstitutional because it violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing one state's law enforcement officers to enter another state for purposes of enforcing its own laws without any regard for local customs or regulations. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that if Congress were allowed such broad powers over private property then there could be no limit on what they might do next; thus leading him to conclude "that we should not extend our construction beyond what is necessary."