Ex parte Graham 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 case arose when a prisoner, William Graham, was held in federal custody in the state of Texas. Graham sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 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 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 detain prisoners. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. 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 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 detain prisoners. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right.

In Ex Parte Graham, 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 it did not have such authority and dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented on this ruling. He argued that while Congress has exclusive power to regulate appeals in cases arising under federal law, states are free to provide their own remedies for those same cases if they so choose. Furthermore, he noted that there were no laws or regulations preventing states from exercising such powers and thus allowing them would be consistent with both constitutional principles and public policy considerations. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that the state courts should be allowed to hear appeals from federal district courts when appropriate circumstances exist as long as they do not conflict with any existing congressional legislation or regulation governing these matters.