In the Courtney v. Pradt case of 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving international law and extradition treaties. The petitioner, William Courtney, was arrested in Wisconsin for alleged crimes committed in Canada and sought to prevent his extradition back to Canada. He argued that since the United States had no existing treaty with Great Britain (which then governed over Canada) covering the specific crime he was accused of - obtaining money under false pretenses - his arrest violated both federal statute and constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures. The court disagreed with Courtney's argument stating that while there may not have been an explicit provision within any active treaty between US and UK regarding this particular crime, it fell under a broader category of "fraud" which was covered by such agreements. Therefore, they concluded that his arrest did not violate either federal law or constitutionally protected rights as claimed by him. Furthermore, they clarified that even if there were ambiguities about whether certain offenses are extraditable under international treaties; these should be resolved through diplomatic channels rather than domestic courts.

The dissenting opinion in the Courtney v. Pradt case, delivered by Justice Harlan, argued that the lower court had jurisdiction over the matter and should not have dismissed it on grounds of non-jurisdiction. He contended that a federal question was indeed involved as per Article III of the Constitution since it concerned an international treaty between America and China - specifically regarding whether or not Chinese laborers who left America temporarily could return under their original certificates without needing new ones from China. The majority's decision to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction effectively denied these laborers' rights under this treaty which he believed were protected by federal law. Thus, he disagreed with dismissing the case instead of addressing its merits directly.