Ex parte McCardle was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the power of the federal government to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The case arose when William McCardle, a newspaper editor in Mississippi, was arrested by federal troops for publishing articles critical of Reconstruction policies. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court, arguing that his arrest was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the federal government had the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion. The Court reasoned that the power to suspend the writ was necessary to protect the nation from enemies, both foreign and domestic. The Court also held that the suspension of the writ was a political question, and thus not subject to judicial review. The decision in Ex parte McCardle was controversial, as it limited the power of the Supreme Court to review the actions of the federal government. The decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex parte Milligan, which held that the writ of habeas corpus could not be suspended in times of peace.

In Ex Parte McCardle, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Congress had the power to revoke a writ of habeas corpus that had already been issued. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and thus ruled in favor of McCardle. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that Congress has ultimate control over federal courts and their jurisdiction. He argued that since Article III of the Constitution grants Congress “the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its powers, then it should also have the ability to limit or even remove certain judicial powers when deemed necessary. Furthermore, he noted how previous court decisions had upheld similar congressional actions in other cases as well as how there were no constitutional provisions explicitly prohibiting such action by Congress. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that while he disagreed with much of what was said in support of revoking habeas corpus rights through legislative action, he felt compelled to uphold Congressional authority due its broad scope under Article III