In the 1933 case Factor v. Laubenheimer, U.S. Marshal, et al., the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving extradition law and property rights. The petitioner, Max Factor Sr., was accused of violating California's Prohibition Act and fled to France before his trial could take place in Los Angeles County Superior Court. After being arrested by French authorities at the request of American officials, he sought to prevent his extradition back to America by arguing that he had not been formally charged with any crime when he left for France; therefore, under international law principles regarding fugitives from justice as well as an existing treaty between America and France which required formal charges be filed prior to flight in order for extradition proceedings to commence, he should not be extradited. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument because it found that while no formal indictment had been issued against him when he left America (which would have constituted "charges" within the meaning of both international law and the relevant treaty), there were still outstanding warrants for his arrest based on complaints sworn out before a magistrate judge alleging violations of state prohibition laws - these were sufficient enough under both domestic statutes governing extradition procedures as well as general principles underlying those procedures internationally such that they effectively constituted "charges" even if no formal indictment had yet been returned against him.

In the dissenting opinion for Factor v. Laubenheimer, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of extradition laws and treaties. He argued that these should be strictly construed to protect individual rights against arbitrary state action. In his view, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish probable cause for extradition under British law or American constitutional standards. The charges were based on a conspiracy theory which he found too vague and uncertain to justify depriving someone of their liberty without trial in America first. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on foreign legal authorities instead of adhering closely to domestic principles and precedents regarding due process protections for accused persons facing potential expulsion from their home country.