In the 1898 case of Ex Parte Henry Ward, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving habeas corpus and extradition laws. Ward was arrested in California under an extradition warrant from New York for alleged forgery crimes committed there. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge his arrest and potential transfer back to New York, arguing that he had been unlawfully detained because the evidence presented against him did not establish probable cause as required by law. The court rejected this argument stating that it is not within their jurisdiction to review or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence used in another state's request for extradition; rather, they must trust that due process has been followed by authorities requesting extradition based on allegations made under oath. Therefore, if all legal formalities have been observed and charges are properly certified by a governor’s warrant from one state demanding return of fugitive from another state, courts cannot intervene unless detainee can prove no crime was committed or he/she wasn’t present at time/place specified.

The dissenting opinion in the Ex Parte Henry Ward case of 1898 was not explicitly recorded. The court's decision, however, was unanimous and therefore did not have a dissenting opinion. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus for prisoners held under state authority unless there is an assertion that they are being held in violation of federal law or the U.S Constitution. This ruling reinforced states' rights over federal intervention in matters pertaining to their own legal systems and procedures.