Moran et al. v. Prather 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 who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison in the state of Mississippi. The prisoner, Prather, had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. 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 remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue it. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to those who were being held in state custody, not federal custody. The Court's decision in this case established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners who are being held in federal custody. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that state courts do not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In Moran et al. v. Prather, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment of foreclosure and sale on a mortgage could be enforced against an heir who had not been made party to the original suit in which the judgment was entered. The majority opinion held that such enforcement would be proper, as long as there were no intervening rights acquired by third parties since the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it violated basic principles of due process for an individual to have their property taken away without being given notice or opportunity to defend themselves against claims brought by another party. He argued that allowing judgments obtained against one person to bind others who are not even aware they may be affected is fundamentally unfair and contrary to established legal precedent requiring all interested parties must receive notice before any action can take effect with respect them.