Ex parte Hitz was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a person who had been convicted of a crime in a state court could be extradited to another state to face criminal charges. The petitioner, Hitz, had been convicted of a crime in the state of California and was then extradited to the state of Nevada to face criminal charges. The Supreme Court held that the extradition was valid and that the petitioner had no right to challenge the extradition. The Court reasoned that the extradition was valid because the petitioner had been convicted of a crime in California and the extradition was in accordance with the laws of both states. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner had no right to challenge the extradition because the extradition was based on a valid conviction in California and the extradition was in accordance with the laws of both states. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not raised any constitutional issues in his challenge to the extradition. As a result, the Court held that the extradition was valid and the petitioner had no right to challenge it.

In Ex Parte Hitz, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued for an individual who had been convicted in California state court. The majority opinion held that the writ could not be granted because it would interfere with the power of states to enforce their own laws and punish offenders. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had given federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions and thus they were obligated to issue such writs when requested by individuals whose constitutional rights may have been violated during their trial or conviction. He argued further that since there was no evidence presented at trial which showed conclusively that petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated, then he should receive a hearing on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus so as to determine if any violations occurred.