In the case of Frisbie v. United States, 1894, the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant's rights were not violated when he was forcibly abducted from another state and brought to trial in Michigan without extradition proceedings. The court held that any means used by the government to bring a defendant into its jurisdiction did not violate due process as long as they had him physically present at trial. This decision established what is known as "the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine," which states that all that matters for jurisdictional purposes is the physical presence of the accused during his or her trial, regardless of how this presence was secured.

In the dissenting opinion for Frisbie v. United States, it was argued that the forcible abduction of a defendant from another state to stand trial violated their constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that this action disregarded due process and infringed upon states' rights by allowing federal authorities to bypass extradition procedures established between states. They contended that such an act undermined the principles of fairness and justice at the heart of our legal system, arguing that ends do not justify means in matters concerning individual liberties and rule of law.