Ex parte Norton 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 federal custody. The petitioner, Norton, was a prisoner in the custody of the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia. He had been convicted of a crime in the District of Columbia and was serving his sentence in the federal penitentiary. Norton sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia granted the writ, and the United States Marshal brought Norton before the court. The United States Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a judicial remedy that could only be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia was not a court of competent jurisdiction, it did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus could only be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, such as a federal court. Therefore, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Norton.

In Ex Parte Norton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an Indian tribe. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because of tribal sovereignty and federal preemption. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress had never explicitly granted tribes immunity from suit in state courts; second, he argued that even if such immunity existed it should be limited to cases involving internal tribal matters and not extend to civil suits between Indians and non-Indians. He concluded by stating his belief that allowing states to exercise their power over all persons within their borders would help protect citizens’ rights while also promoting peace among different groups of people living together in one area.