Ex parte David Taylor was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1852. The case involved an appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, which had denied habeas corpus relief to David Taylor, who had been arrested and imprisoned on charges related to his alleged involvement in a slave insurrection plot. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that while Congress has authority over federal criminal matters such as those involving slavery, it does not have exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving habeas corpus petitions. Furthermore, state courts are empowered to grant writs of habeas corpus when necessary under their own laws and procedures. As such, they can provide relief even if Congress has declined or failed to act on similar matters within its purview. Ultimately, this decision affirmed that both federal and state governments possess concurrent powers with respect to granting writs of habeas corpus; thus allowing individuals like David Taylor access to justice regardless of whether their claims fall within one government's jurisdiction or another's

In Ex Parte David Taylor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an alleged crime committed in Indian Territory. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it was outside of its territorial limits and thus beyond its power. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had given states authority to extend their criminal laws into Indian Territory; secondly, he contended that even if Congress had not done so explicitly, such authority should be implied due to the fact that Indians were subject to federal law and could be punished for violations thereof by federal courts. He concluded his dissent by asserting that "the right of punishing offences against [federal] laws is one which belongs exclusively to those who make them."