Ex parte Morris and Johnson 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 a federal prison. The case arose when two prisoners, Morris and Johnson, were held in a federal prison in the state of Tennessee. The state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to the warden of the prison, ordering him to produce the prisoners before the court. The warden refused to comply with the writ, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that could not be denied by the federal government. The Court further held that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the prisoners were held in a prison located within the state's jurisdiction. The Court's decision in Ex parte Morris and Johnson established that state courts have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been used to protect the rights of prisoners held in federal custody.

In Ex Parte Morris and Johnson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued to two individuals who had been convicted in a military court. The majority opinion held that the writ could not be granted because it would interfere with Congress' power to regulate the army. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress did not have authority over such matters and thus could not prevent an individual's right to due process under the law. He argued that while Congress may have some control over military courts, they do not possess absolute power when it comes to civil rights issues like habeas corpus petitions. Furthermore, he noted that if these men were denied their right to due process then any other person subject to similar proceedings would also suffer injustice as well. As such, Justice Field concluded by asserting his belief that granting a writ of habeas corpus in this case was necessary for justice and fairness within our legal system.