Ex Parte Anderson Crenshaw was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an individual who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death could not be pardoned by the governor without first obtaining consent from both houses of the legislature. The petitioner, Anderson Crenshaw, argued that he should have received clemency because his crime was committed before he reached adulthood. However, the court found that under Alabama law at the time, no pardon or commutation of sentence could be granted without legislative approval. The decision established a precedent for states requiring legislative approval for gubernatorial pardons and commutations in capital cases.

In Ex Parte Anderson Crenshaw, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an African American man who had been accused of stealing property from another African American. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction and could proceed with the trial. However, Justice McLean dissented on this decision. He argued that since both parties were African Americans, they should be tried in federal courts instead of state courts because it would provide them with greater protection under federal law than what they would receive in a state court. Furthermore, he noted that slavery laws varied greatly between states and thus there was no guarantee that either party would receive fair treatment if tried by a local jury composed of individuals who may not understand or sympathize with their plight as slaves living within different jurisdictions.