Murphy v. Ramsey & Others 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 federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, John Murphy, was arrested and held in federal custody in the state of Tennessee. Murphy sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the state court on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over federal prisoners. Murphy then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court had the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court ultimately 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 lacked the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to detain prisoners. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's exercise of that right. As such, the Court held that the state court lacked the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Murphy.

In Murphy v. Ramsey & Others, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against residents of that state. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction in this case and affirmed the judgment of the lower courts. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that under Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution, states are not allowed to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents; second, he argued that even if such power were granted to them by Congress or some other authority it would be unconstitutional because it would violate due process rights guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions. He concluded his dissent with a warning about how allowing states too much power could lead to "a dangerous concentration" of judicial authority in one place which could threaten individual liberty and justice for all citizens regardless of their residency status.