Wilson v. McNamee was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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, Wilson, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. 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 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 prisoner's confinement, and not to challenge the conditions of confinement. The Court's decision in Wilson v. McNamee established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also clarified the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, and established that it could only be used to challenge the legality of a prisoner's confinement, and not to challenge the conditions of confinement.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wilson v. McNamee, arguing that the lower court's decision should have been affirmed. He argued that under Louisiana law, a contract to purchase land was not binding until it had been accepted by both parties and approved by a third party judge or justice of the peace. In this case, neither condition had been met when McNamee attempted to transfer title of the property to Wilson; therefore, no valid contract existed between them and McNamee could not be held liable for breach of contract damages as sought by Wilson. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there were an enforceable agreement between them at one point in time, any such agreement would have expired due to its lack of performance within two years from its formation as required under Louisiana law. Therefore he concluded that since no legally binding obligation existed between these parties at any point during their dispute over ownership rights for this particular piece of land they should each bear their own costs associated with bringing suit against one another before the Supreme Court