In the 1914 case of Drew, Sheriff of Coos County, New Hampshire v. Thaw, Harry K. Thaw was held in custody by Sheriff Drew after escaping from a mental institution in New York where he had been committed following his murder trial for killing Stanford White. The Supreme Court ruled that even though Thaw had escaped from an asylum rather than prison, he was still considered a fugitive and could be extradited back to New York without violating any constitutional rights. This decision clarified the interpretation of extradition laws and confirmed that they applied not only to convicted criminals but also those who were confined due to insanity rulings.

In the dissenting opinion for Drew v. Thaw, Justice Holmes argued that the extradition of Harry K. Thaw from New Hampshire to New York should not have been allowed because it was based on a civil commitment order rather than a criminal charge. He believed that this violated the constitutional requirement that extraditions must be for crimes, not civil matters. Furthermore, he contended that even if Thaw's escape from a mental institution could be considered as an act against public justice in New York, it did not necessarily constitute such an act in New Hampshire where he was found and arrested; thus making his extradition questionable under federal law which requires dual criminality - i.e., the alleged crime must be recognized as such by both states involved in an extradition process.