In the case of Fetters, U.S. Marshal v. United States ex rel. Cunningham in 1930, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning extradition law and its application to federal prisoners serving sentences in state prisons. The respondent, Cunningham was convicted for mail theft and sentenced to serve time in an Illinois prison but he escaped before completing his sentence. He was later arrested under different charges in California where he served another sentence after which he sought release through habeas corpus claiming that his detention by the U.S marshal (Fetters) for return to Illinois violated his rights since there had been no formal request from Illinois' governor requesting extradition as required by federal statute at that time. The Supreme Court held that while states have jurisdiction over their own prisoners, once a prisoner has escaped from a state's custody they become subject to federal authority if they commit crimes against the United States or violate parole conditions set by Federal authorities even without formal request from original state's governor.

In the dissenting opinion for Fetters v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and violated principles of federalism by allowing a state prisoner to challenge his detention in federal court before exhausting all available remedies at the state level. He contended that this approach undermined respect for state courts and could lead to unnecessary interference with their functions by encouraging prisoners to bypass them in favor of federal habeas corpus proceedings. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes, asserting they did not provide a basis for such broad use of federal habeas corpus relief as envisioned by the majority ruling.