In the 1917 case of Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police of the City of New York, Charles Biddinger challenged his arrest and extradition to Ohio on a burglary charge. He argued that he was denied due process because he wasn't given an opportunity to challenge the legality of his arrest before being extradited. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that there is no constitutional requirement for a hearing prior to extradition between states under Article IV, Section 2 (the Extradition Clause) and federal law implementing it. The court held that once a governor has granted extradition based on proper demand from another state's executive authority, any further review by courts in either state would be limited only to whether the paperwork was in order or if the person named in them had been properly identified as demanded.

In the dissenting opinion for Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police of the City of New York, Justice Holmes argued that there was no violation of due process rights in this case. He contended that extradition is a political matter and not judicial, thus it should be left to the discretion of state governors rather than courts. Furthermore, he believed that once an individual has been identified as a fugitive from justice by one state's governor and demanded by another's, any subsequent arrest within the demanding state does not violate constitutional protections against unlawful seizure or detention. This view contrasts with majority’s stance which held that Biddinger had been unlawfully detained because his arrest in New York did not follow proper legal procedures under federal law governing interstate rendition proceedings.