Harrison v. Sterry and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1809. The dispute centered around whether or not an individual had the right to sue another for damages caused by false imprisonment, even if that person did not have legal authority to imprison them in the first place. In this particular case, Harrison sued Sterry and others for falsely imprisoning him on suspicion of being a runaway slave from Virginia despite having no legal authority to do so. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Harrison, finding that he could indeed bring suit against those who wrongfully imprisoned him regardless of their lack of legal authority over his person at the time they committed said act. This ruling established precedent which has been used ever since as justification for individuals seeking redress when wrongfully detained without due process or any other form of lawful authorization whatsoever.

In Harrison v. Sterry and Others, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed the case on procedural grounds. He argued that it was within their power to decide whether or not an act of Congress had been violated by a state law, even if no actual controversy existed between parties at the time of filing suit. Marshall further noted that while there may be some cases where such matters are better left for political resolution rather than judicial determination, this particular case did not fall into such category as it involved only questions of law and fact related to constitutional interpretation. In conclusion, he urged his colleagues to reconsider their decision so as to allow them “to exercise jurisdiction over all those cases in which they can constitutionally do so” instead of dismissing them without due consideration simply because no actual controversy exists between parties at the time suit is filed.