In Ahrens et al. v. Clark, Attorney General (1947), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner is within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at the time when filing occurs. The case involved 120 German nationals who were detained in Germany by American military authorities and sought release through habeas corpus petitions filed in Washington D.C., arguing they were being held unlawfully under Executive Order No. 9788 which gave control over alien enemies to Secretary of War and military commanders designated by him or them during World War II's aftermath period. However, since they weren't physically present within any district when their applications for relief were made, it was decided that District Courts didn’t have authority to grant such writs according to statutory interpretation of Habeas Corpus Act’s language.

In the dissenting opinion for Ahrens et al. v. Clark, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's interpretation of habeas corpus jurisdiction was too narrow and contrary to historical practice. He contended that a court should be able to issue a writ of habeas corpus if it has jurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner, regardless of where the prisoner is physically located. This view aligns with traditional principles which hold that "the essence of those proceedings is an attack upon unlawful physical restraint." Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues' reliance on technicalities in denying relief to detainees held overseas by U.S officials, stating such approach undermines fundamental human rights protections inherent in habeas corpus law tradition.