Ex parte Russell is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of habeas corpus. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the writ of habeas corpus could not be used to challenge the legality of a military court-martial. The case involved a soldier, William Russell, who was convicted by a military court-martial of desertion and sentenced to two years of hard labor. Russell then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court-martial lacked jurisdiction to try him. The Supreme Court, however, held that the writ of habeas corpus could not be used to challenge the legality of a military court-martial. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was intended to protect individuals from unlawful imprisonment, and that the military court-martial was a lawful tribunal. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not intended to be used to challenge the legality of a military court-martial, as the military was a separate branch of government with its own set of laws and regulations. The Court concluded that the writ of habeas corpus could not be used to challenge the legality of a military court-martial, and that the conviction of William Russell was valid.

In Ex Parte Russell, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged violation of the Neutrality Act. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction because Congress had not given any express authority for this type of action in the statute. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while there may be no explicit language granting federal courts power to hear cases like these, they should still have inherent authority to do so based on their general powers as established by Article III of the Constitution. He further noted that if Congress intended otherwise, then it would have been easy enough for them to include specific language denying such power in the statute itself. As such, he concluded that since Congress has not done so here, then federal courts should be allowed to exercise their discretion when deciding whether or not they can take up cases related to violations of neutrality laws.