In the Ex Parte Uppercu case of 1915, petitioner Frederick A. Uppercu sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his detention by federal authorities on charges of perjury and conspiracy. The charges were related to an alleged scheme involving fraudulent naturalization proceedings for immigrants in New York City. The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter because there was no final judgment from a lower court under review. Furthermore, they stated that even if they had jurisdiction, they would not have granted relief as there was sufficient evidence presented against Uppercu at trial to support his indictment and arrest warrant.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Uppercu, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus. He argued that the petitioner was entitled to this relief because he had been held in custody without due process of law. The petitioner was arrested and detained based on an extradition request from France, but there were serious doubts about whether his alleged crime – perjury committed during a civil lawsuit – would be considered criminal under French law or could serve as grounds for extradition under existing treaties between France and the United States. Furthermore, Justice Holmes pointed out that even if these legal questions were resolved in favor of extradition, it would still be necessary to determine whether there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner to justify holding him in custody pending trial. In light of these unresolved issues and uncertainties, Justice Holmes believed that it was premature and unjustified for the Court to reject outrightly any possibility of granting habeas corpus relief.