Linthicum v. Ray 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 a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Linthicum, was held in a federal prison in Maryland. Linthicum sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the federal court. 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a federal power, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison.

In the case of Linthicum v. Ray, Chief Justice Chase wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal law. He believed that Congress had exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce and thus could not be overruled by any state legislature or court. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some ambiguity in the language used by Congress when it passed legislation related to this issue, it should have been interpreted broadly so as to give effect to its intent and purpose: protecting citizens from unreasonable discrimination against them while traveling between states. In conclusion, Chief Justice Chase asserted that since no such protection existed under Maryland's laws at the time of this case, they should not be applied here and instead federal authority should prevail over any conflicting state regulations.