In re Green is a Supreme Court case from 1881 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 a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Green, was held in a federal prison in the state of New York. Green's attorney filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that the federal government had no authority to detain him. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 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 writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the power to protect it. In re Green is an important case because it established the principle that the federal government has the power to protect the writ of habeas corpus, and that state courts do not have the authority to interfere with this power. The case also established the principle that the writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right that must be protected by the federal government.

In Re Green is a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual can be held criminally liable for failing to register as a sex offender. The majority opinion was that individuals should be held accountable and must comply with registration requirements, but Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that criminalizing failure to register would disproportionately affect those who are already disadvantaged and vulnerable. She noted that many people fail to register due to lack of resources or knowledge, rather than any malicious intent. Furthermore, she argued that this law could lead to further discrimination against certain groups such as minorities and the poor who may have difficulty complying with these regulations. Ultimately, Justice Sotomayor concluded by stating her belief that it is unfair and unjustified for someone’s liberty interests to be taken away simply because they failed to complete paperwork associated with registering as a sex offender when there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part.