In the case of Cuyler, Correctional Superintendent, et al. v. Adams in 1980, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning interstate extradition and parole violation. The respondent was a Pennsylvania parolee who had been arrested in New York for attempted robbery and subsequently extradited to Pennsylvania without being given an opportunity to challenge his arrest warrant as required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). He argued that this violated Article IV(c) of IAD which mandates speedy trial rights for prisoners against whom detainers have been lodged by other states. However, the court held that since he was not serving a sentence at the time of his arrest but rather was only detained pending disposition of unrelated charges; hence he did not qualify as 'prisoner' under IAD's terms and thus could be returned to Pennsylvania without triggering any protections under Article IV(c). Therefore, it concluded that there were no violations made against him regarding his extradition from New York back to Pennsylvania.

In the dissenting opinion for Cuyler v. Adams, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief based on a perceived conflict of interest in legal representation. He argued that there was no evidence showing that any potential conflict had adversely affected counsel’s performance or compromised their loyalty to either defendant during trial proceedings. Furthermore, he contended that it is not enough for defendants merely to show a possible scenario where their interests could have diverged from those of co-defendants; they must demonstrate an actual significant effect on counsel's handling of relevant aspects of the case due to this divergence. The burden should be placed upon defendants claiming such conflicts rather than requiring courts or prosecutors to anticipate and avoid all potential conflicts among jointly represented defendants.