Ex parte Cutting was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state court. The case involved a man named Cutting who had been convicted of murder in a California state court. He had appealed his conviction to the California Supreme Court, but the court had denied his appeal. Cutting then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. The Circuit Court granted the writ, and the state of California appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court did not have the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to federal courts, and that the Circuit Court was not a federal court. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only in cases where the petitioner was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Since Cutting was in custody in accordance with the laws of the state of California, the writ of habeas corpus was not available to him. The Court's decision in Ex parte Cutting established that federal courts do not have the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to state courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal habeas corpus law.

In Ex Parte Cutting, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a writ of habeas corpus should be granted for one William Cutting. The majority opinion held that the writ should not be issued because it would interfere with an ongoing criminal trial in California. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that Congress had given federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions, and thus they could issue such a writ regardless of any state proceedings. He further noted that if the petitioner were found guilty by the state court, he would still have recourse through federal courts to challenge his conviction on constitutional grounds or other matters related to his imprisonment. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that it was within Congress's power to grant federal courts authority over these types of cases and urged them to exercise their discretion accordingly in order to protect individual rights against potential abuses by states.