In Stephen v. R. Ableman, the Supreme Court considered whether a federal court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in order to release Sherman M. Booth from state custody for his involvement in aiding and abetting fugitive slaves escape from their owners. The case arose when Booth was arrested by Wisconsin authorities under an act of Congress that criminalized assisting runaway slaves, and he sought relief through a petition for habeas corpus filed with the United States Circuit Court for Wisconsin Territory. The Supreme Court held that while Congress could pass laws regulating slavery within its territories, it did not have authority over individual states' enforcement of such laws or any other matters related to slavery; therefore, the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear Booth's petition and must dismiss it without prejudice so as not to interfere with state proceedings against him on this matter.

In Stephen v. R. Ableman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an alleged violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by Sherman M. Booth, who aided in rescuing a fugitive slave from custody under state law enforcement officers and their warrants issued pursuant to that act. The majority opinion held that the federal court did not have jurisdiction because it found no evidence that Booth's actions interfered with or obstructed any process issued by a United States Commissioner or judge as required for such jurisdiction under section 643 of the Revised Statutes (1850). In his dissent Justice McLean argued that Congress intended for this provision to be broadly interpreted so as to protect fugitives from slavery regardless of how they were rescued and thus he concluded that the lower court should have been allowed to hear this case on its merits since there was sufficient evidence presented showing interference with state processes related to enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act.