Ex parte Flippin 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 federal custody. The petitioner, Flippin, was a prisoner in the custody of the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Arkansas. He had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence in the federal penitentiary. Flippin sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of federal law, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's enforcement of federal law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime.

In Ex Parte Flippin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a federal district court. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority under the Constitution and laws of Congress. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while there may be some constitutional limitations on states' power to hear appeals from federal courts, those limits do not apply in this case because Congress has granted states broad powers when it comes to hearing appeals from their own courts. He argued further that if Congress intended for only certain types of cases to be heard by state courts then they would have specified such in legislation or other documents. As no such restrictions exist here, he concluded that the state court should retain its right to hear appeals from federal district courts as long as it is consistent with applicable law and does not interfere with any rights guaranteed by either party involved in the dispute before them.