The U.S. Supreme Court case Fernandez v. Phillips, in 1924, involved a dispute over the extradition of an individual from the United States to Peru for criminal prosecution. The petitioner, Fernandez, was arrested in New York and held for extradition at the request of Peruvian authorities who accused him of embezzlement while he served as a public official in Peru. He challenged his arrest and detention on grounds that there was no valid treaty between the two countries permitting his extradition. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Fernandez's claim stating that even though there were some discrepancies regarding whether or not certain articles within previous treaties remained effective after independence declarations by several South American states (including Peru), it did not invalidate those portions which allowed for extraditions to take place. Thus, despite changes brought about by political events such as revolutions or secessions affecting other parts of these agreements; provisions dealing with matters like fugitive returns could still be considered operative unless specifically terminated through mutual consent or replaced by new arrangements.

In the dissenting opinion for Fernandez v. Phillips, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of international law and comity among nations. He contended that it is not within the jurisdiction of U.S courts to decide on matters related to foreign criminal proceedings unless there is an extradition treaty in place between countries involved. In this case, he believed that since no such treaty existed between America and Honduras at the time when Fernandez committed his alleged crimes, it would be inappropriate for American authorities to extradite him back to Honduras. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuses by foreign governments who might seek extradition without proper evidence or fair trials guaranteed for accused individuals.