In the 1910 case, Ex Parte in the Matter of the State of Oklahoma, a dispute arose over whether or not an individual could be extradited from one state to another for a crime that was only considered illegal in the latter. The Supreme Court ruled that extradition between states is permissible even if what constitutes as a crime differs between them. This decision came about when Oklahoma sought to extradite Charles Hyde from Kansas on charges of embezzlement. While Kansas did not recognize his actions as criminal, Oklahoma did and thus wanted him returned for trial. The court held that it was irrelevant whether both states had identical laws regarding specific crimes; what mattered was if the person being extradited would be charged with a crime upon return to their home state.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte In The Matter Of The State Of Oklahoma, 1910, argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to intervene in a state's internal affairs. It was contended that the issue at hand pertained to an internal matter within Oklahoma and should be resolved by its own courts rather than being escalated to federal level. This perspective emphasized respect for states' rights and autonomy under federalism principles enshrined in U.S Constitution. Furthermore, it suggested that intervening could set a dangerous precedent where federal authorities might unduly interfere with state matters. Thus, according to this viewpoint, even if there were potential legal issues or disputes within a state’s boundaries they should be addressed through local judicial systems unless they directly contravened constitutional law or infringed upon federally protected rights.