Wirth v. Branson 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, Wirth, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. Wirth 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. The Court's decision in Wirth v. Branson established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts do not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wirth v. Branson, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake, which he did not believe had been demonstrated in this case. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if the court were to allow for modification of contracts based on changed circumstances then it could open up a Pandora's box of litigation over every contract entered into by individuals or businesses. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing for such modifications would create uncertainty and instability within commercial transactions and thus urged his colleagues to adhere strictly to existing legal principles when deciding cases like this one.