Ex Parte Wood & Brundage was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Congress has the power to pass laws regulating immigration. The petitioners, two British subjects who had been denied entry into the United States by President James Monroe, argued that only states have authority over immigration and not Congress. The Supreme Court disagreed and found that under Article I of the Constitution, Congress does indeed possess this power. Furthermore, they reasoned that since foreign relations are an area of federal responsibility it is reasonable for them to regulate who may enter or remain within their borders as part of their diplomatic efforts with other nations. This decision established an important precedent regarding congressional powers related to immigration policy and remains relevant today given current debates on this issue.

In Ex Parte Wood & Brundage, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a federal district court. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and dismissed the case. Justice Johnson dissented, arguing that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion on jurisdictional grounds, he believed there were other considerations which should be taken into account in deciding this matter. He argued that if Congress intended for appeals of this nature to be heard by state courts then they should be allowed to do so as long as their decision does not conflict with any federal laws or regulations. Furthermore, Johnson suggested that allowing states to hear these types of cases would help ensure uniformity among all judicial decisions and promote public confidence in our legal system.