Wright v. Ellison was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1863. The dispute arose when William Wright, an African American man from Maryland, sued his former owner and employer, John Ellison of Virginia. Wright claimed that he had been illegally held as a slave by Ellison for over two years after slavery had been abolished in the District of Columbia where they both resided at the time. He sought damages for this illegal detention under the provisions of an act passed by Congress to protect freed slaves from being re-enslaved or otherwise wrongfully detained against their will. In its decision, the court found that although slavery had indeed been abolished in Washington D.C., it still existed legally elsewhere and therefore could not be considered illegal everywhere else within U.S borders; thus denying Wright's claim on technical grounds without addressing whether or not he was actually enslaved during those two years with Ellison as he alleged . Ultimately however, this ruling did set a precedent which established that any person who is unlawfully held against their will can seek redress through civil action regardless of where they are located within U.S boundaries at the time

In Wright v. Ellison, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has given federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states when the matter in controversy exceeds $500. He argued further that if Congress intended for state courts to have concurrent or subordinate authority with respect to such matters then they would have made explicit provisions for it in their legislation; since no such provision exists, he concluded that only federal courts can hear these types of cases.