In the case of Alabama v. Michael Herman Bozeman, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) had occurred when Bozeman was briefly transferred from federal to state custody for arraignment and then returned to federal prison before his trial in state court. The IAD is an agreement among states aimed at expediting final disposition of charges pending against a prisoner in another jurisdiction and it prohibits shuttling prisoners back and forth between jurisdictions. In this case, Alabama argued that its actions were justified because they were part of one continuous process but the court disagreed stating that such interpretation would undermine purpose of IAD which is meant to protect prisoners' rights by limiting transfers between jurisdictions until all proceedings are completed in one jurisdiction.

In the case of Alabama v. Michael Herman Bozeman, the dissenting opinion argued that the majority's interpretation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) was too rigid and literal, failing to consider its broader purpose and context. The dissenters believed that a more flexible approach should be taken when interpreting this agreement, which is designed to protect prisoners' rights during extradition proceedings between states. They pointed out that in this specific case, Bozeman was not significantly disadvantaged by being briefly returned to Alabama before his trial in Louisiana - he did not lose any legal rights or suffer any undue hardship as a result of this action. Therefore, they felt it was unnecessary for his indictment to be dismissed simply because there had been a technical violation of IAD procedures. In their view, such an extreme remedy should only be applied if there has been substantial harm done to the prisoner's interests.