Ex parte Newman 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 a prisoner, Newman, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. Newman sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. 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 the rights of individuals. 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. 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 the rights of individuals.

In Ex Parte Newman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued in order for an individual to be released from prison. The majority opinion held that the writ could not issue because it would interfere with state court proceedings. However, Justice Field dissented and argued that federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of constitutional rights regardless of any state court proceedings. He further argued that if a person is being unlawfully detained by state authorities then they are entitled to relief through a federal habeas corpus petition and thus the writ should issue in this case. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that individuals who were wrongfully imprisoned had the right to seek redress through federal courts even when their claims were pending before state courts.