Ex parte Schollenberger 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 case arose when a prisoner, Schollenberger, was held in federal custody in Pennsylvania and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the power to issue such writs was reserved to the federal government. 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 power to issue such writs was reserved to the federal government, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to protect such rights. 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 federal custody. The Court reasoned that the power to issue such writs was reserved to the federal government, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power.

In Ex Parte Schollenberger, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident of that state. The majority opinion held that the lower court did have jurisdiction in this case because it involved property located within its boundaries. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction because there was no proof of service on any party residing in the forum state. He reasoned that due process requires notice be given to all parties before they can be bound by a judgment rendered against them; thus, without proper service of process upon those who reside outside of the forum's borders, such persons cannot be subjected to its authority or compelled to appear before it.