In the case of Brede v. Powers, a man named Brede was convicted for conspiracy to obstruct commerce by robbery and appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had been illegally arrested without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that an arrest without a warrant is legal if there is probable cause to believe that the person has committed or is committing a crime. In this case, law enforcement officials had received information from two reliable sources indicating that Brede was planning to rob a mail truck. This information provided sufficient probable cause for his arrest even though it occurred before any actual attempt at robbery took place.

In the dissenting opinion for Brede v. Powers, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone, disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied habeas corpus relief to an individual who was extradited from New York to California on charges of grand larceny. The dissent argued that there were significant issues regarding due process rights in this case because it appeared that the accused had not been given adequate opportunity or time to challenge his extradition before being forcibly removed from New York. They believed this violated constitutional protections against arbitrary detention without trial or hearing, asserting that every person has a right under law to contest their arrest and potential removal across state lines before such actions are taken. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for failing adequately address these concerns in their decision.