Ex Parte Vallandigham was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of civil liberties during wartime. The case involved Clement L. Vallandigham, an Ohio politician and leader of the Copperhead movement who had been arrested by Union forces for violating General Order No. 38 issued by Major-General Ambrose E. Burnside in 1863 which prohibited any public expression against the war effort or government policies related to it. After being tried before a military commission, he was convicted and sentenced to prison but appealed his conviction on grounds that his arrest violated both state law and federal constitutional rights under habeas corpus protection as well as freedom of speech protections under the First Amendment; however, these claims were rejected by both lower courts leading him to appeal directly to the US Supreme Court where he argued that since no civilian court existed at this time due to martial law imposed in Cincinnati, Ohio (where he resided), then only civilian courts could try him according to existing laws protecting citizens from arbitrary arrests without cause or trial - thus making his arrest illegal and unconstitutional regardless if it occurred during wartime or not . Ultimately, while rejecting Vallandigham's arguments regarding habeas corpus protection since they did not apply outside of peacetime conditions ,the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Vallandigham on free speech grounds stating that even though some restrictions may be necessary for maintaining order during times of war such restrictions must still adhere within reasonable limits set forth by Congress - thus reversing all prior convictions made against him based

In Ex Parte Vallandigham, the Supreme Court of the United States heard an appeal from a lower court's decision to convict Clement L. Vallandigham for violating General Order No. 38 issued by Major-General Burnside during the Civil War. The order prohibited any person from expressing sympathy with those in rebellion against the government or discouraging enlistment into military service and provided that anyone found guilty of such acts would be tried before a military commission and punished as deemed fit by them. In his dissent, Justice David Davis argued that Congress had not granted President Lincoln authority to issue such orders which interfered with civil liberties protected under habeas corpus laws; therefore, he concluded that General Order No. 38 was unconstitutional and should have been declared void ab initio (from its inception). He further stated that since no law existed authorizing punishment for violation of this order, it could not be enforced against Vallandingham who was entitled to protection under habeas corpus laws even if he did commit some act contrary to public safety or welfare during wartime conditions