The Collins v. Loiselle case in 1921 revolved around the issue of extradition between states, specifically Louisiana and California. The petitioner, Collins, was arrested in Louisiana on charges from California but contested his arrest and potential extradition to California based on a technicality: he argued that the warrant for his arrest did not properly describe him as a fugitive from justice. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that it is not necessary for an individual to be labeled explicitly as a "fugitive" within an extradition request or warrant if there are sufficient facts indicating they fled from one state where they committed a crime to another state seeking refuge. Therefore, despite any procedural irregularities with how the warrant was issued or served, these were deemed insufficient grounds to prevent Collins' return (extradition) to California.

In the dissenting opinion for Collins v. Loisel, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus to Collins. He argued that there was no evidence presented in court proving that Collins' constitutional rights were violated during his trial and conviction in Louisiana state courts. According to him, it was not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction or power under federal law to intervene on behalf of a prisoner who had been convicted by a state court unless there was clear proof of violation of constitutional rights. Furthermore, he contended that granting such relief would undermine states' authority over their own criminal justice systems and could potentially lead to an influx of similar petitions from other prisoners seeking federal intervention in their cases without sufficient grounds.