In the 1910 case of Harlan v. McGourin, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether or not an individual could be extradited from one state to another for trial on criminal charges. The petitioner, Mr. Harlan, argued that he was illegally arrested and detained by Marshal McGourin in Florida for extradition to Georgia where he faced charges of embezzlement as a public officer. He claimed his arrest violated his constitutional rights because there was no legal warrant issued in Florida authorizing it and also contended that the crime he was charged with did not fall under any category requiring interstate extradition according to federal law at that time. The court ruled against Harlan's claims stating that while indeed there were specific crimes listed under federal law which required interstate extradition, this list wasn't exhaustive nor intended to limit states' power regarding such matters; hence they had discretion beyond these specified offenses when seeking suspects from other jurisdictions. Furthermore, it held that since Georgia had properly requested Harlan’s return based on its own laws and procedures (which included issuing a valid warrant), his arrest didn’t violate any constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Harlan v. McGourin, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief to McGourin. He argued that even if there was a mistake in the original trial court proceedings, it did not necessarily mean that McGourin was being held unlawfully or without jurisdiction. According to him, errors made during a trial do not automatically equate to an absence of jurisdiction and therefore should not be grounds for granting habeas corpus relief. Furthermore, he contended that such issues were better suited for appeal rather than habeas corpus petitions because they involve questions about how laws are applied rather than whether someone is lawfully detained under those laws. In his view, using writs of habeas corpus as a means of correcting legal mistakes undermines their intended purpose: protecting individuals from unlawful detention.