Ex parte Bradley was a United States Supreme Court case 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, William Bradley, was held in a federal prison in California and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the California Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court held that the California Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right and that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. The Court further noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right and that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner. In conclusion, the Court held that the California Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to the 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 issue the writ. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right and that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over the prisoner.

In Ex Parte Bradley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a former Confederate soldier could be pardoned by President Andrew Johnson. The majority opinion held that the pardon was valid and binding on all parties involved. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it would set a dangerous precedent for future presidents to grant pardons without consulting Congress or obtaining its approval first. He further stated that such an action would undermine the separation of powers between branches of government as established in Article II of the Constitution. Additionally, he noted that if Congress had been consulted prior to granting this particular pardon then they may have taken into consideration other factors which were not considered by President Johnson when making their decision about whether or not to approve it. Finally, he concluded his dissent with a warning against allowing any president too much power over matters related to national security and civil rights without proper oversight from Congress or judicial review from courts like the Supreme Court itself.