Wright v. Nagle 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, Wright, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. Wright 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 detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement. The Court's decision in Wright v. Nagle 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 detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the prisoner's confinement.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wright v. Nagle, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether one party has received some benefit from it or not. Furthermore, he noted that if the court were to adopt the majority's reasoning then any contract could be voided simply because one party had already benefited from it before they sought enforcement of its terms. In his view this would create uncertainty in contractual relationships and encourage people not to rely on contracts as a means of settling disputes since their validity could always be challenged at a later date. Ultimately Justice Field concluded by stating that while courts have discretion when interpreting contracts they must do so within certain limits; otherwise there is no certainty or stability in commercial transactions which are essential for economic progress and prosperity