Ex parte Morgan & Another is 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 a federal prison. The case involved two prisoners, Morgan and another, who were held in a federal prison in the state of Alabama. The state court had issued a writ of habeas corpus to the federal prison, ordering the release of the prisoners. The federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ, as the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over federal prisons. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over federal prisons, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to those held in state prisons, and not to those held in federal prisons. As such, the Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus.

In Ex Parte Morgan & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it violated Article III of the Constitution which requires cases between citizens of different states to be tried in federal courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while Article III does provide for such cases to be heard in federal courts, there is nothing preventing them from being heard in state courts as well. He further noted that Congress has passed laws allowing certain types of suits between citizens of different states to be brought before state tribunals and thus concluded that it would violate congressional intent if these kinds of suits were only allowed before federal tribunals. As such, he believed that the lower court's ruling should stand and they should have been given jurisdiction over this particular case.