Ex Parte Bollman was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of habeas corpus. The court held that Aaron Burr, who had been arrested for treason and other offenses, could not be tried in Virginia because he had never been present there. Instead, the court ruled that he must be tried in Washington D.C., where his alleged crimes were committed. This ruling established an important precedent regarding the right to habeas corpus: it is only applicable when a person has actually been present within a jurisdiction's boundaries at some point prior to their arrest or detention. Furthermore, this decision also set forth guidelines as to how federal courts should handle cases involving individuals accused of committing crimes across state lines or against multiple states simultaneously; such cases must be heard by federal courts rather than local ones due to their complexity and potential implications on interstate relations between states.

In Ex Parte Bollman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a writ of habeas corpus should be issued for two men accused of treason. The majority opinion held that the writ should not be granted because there was no evidence presented that would prove their innocence. However, Justice Chase dissented from this decision and argued that it is unconstitutional to deny someone access to a writ of habeas corpus without any proof or legal justification. He further stated that if Congress had intended such an interpretation they would have included language in the Constitution explicitly stating so. Furthermore, he argued that denying individuals access to these rights could lead to arbitrary arrests and imprisonment by government officials who are unaccountable for their actions. In conclusion, Justice Chase believed strongly in protecting individual liberties as outlined in the Constitution and felt it necessary for citizens’ rights to remain intact even when facing serious criminal charges like treason.