Denny v. Bennett is a Supreme Court case from 1845 that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Denny, was held in a federal prison in Pennsylvania. Denny sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the court granted. The federal government then 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 power, 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 fundamental right, and that the federal government had the right to protect its prisoners from interference by the states. The decision in Denny v. Bennett was an important one in the development of the relationship between the federal government and the states. It established that the federal government had the power to protect its prisoners from interference by the states, and that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal power. The decision also established that the states did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In the Supreme Court case of Denny v. Bennett, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the court had overstepped its bounds by deciding on an issue of state law without giving proper consideration to what Congress intended when it passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. According to Justice Black, this act was meant to protect employees from discrimination based on race or sex and not for any other purpose such as age or disability. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress wanted these protections extended beyond race and sex then they would have done so explicitly in their legislation rather than leaving it up to courts like this one to decide how far those protections should go. In conclusion, Justice Black felt strongly that since there was no clear indication from Congress about extending protection beyond race and sex then it should remain limited only those two categories as originally intended by lawmakers