Ex Parte Martha Bradstreet was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 1833. The case concerned Martha Bradstreet, who had been declared insane and placed under guardianship by her husband. She sought to be released from this guardianship so that she could manage her own affairs. The court ruled that while it was within the power of state legislatures to create laws concerning insanity and its effects on property rights, they must not violate constitutional protections such as due process or equal protection under the law. Furthermore, any decision regarding an individual's mental health should be made with evidence presented before a jury of peers rather than through arbitrary executive action alone. Ultimately, the court found that Martha Bradstreet had been denied due process when she was declared insane without proper legal proceedings being conducted first; thus granting her petition for release from guardianship and restoring her right to self-determination over her own affairs.

In Ex Parte Martha Bradstreet, the dissenting opinion argued that the court should not have granted a writ of habeas corpus to Martha Bradstreet. The dissent reasoned that since she was being held in custody by her father for her own protection and not as punishment or restraint, there was no legal basis for granting a writ of habeas corpus. Furthermore, they argued that it would be inappropriate to interfere with parental authority and discretion when deciding what is best for their children. They concluded by stating that if any wrong had been done to Ms. Bradstreet then other remedies were available but this case did not warrant judicial interference with parental rights over their children's welfare.