In Robert M. Harrison, United States Consul v George C. Vose, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a consular officer had the power to arrest and detain an individual for violating a foreign country's laws in another nation’s jurisdiction. The plaintiff argued that as a representative of his government abroad he had such authority while the defendant maintained that only local authorities could make arrests within their own borders. After examining both sides' arguments, the court held that although consuls may have certain powers granted by treaty or custom they do not possess general police powers over citizens of other countries on foreign soil; thus it ruled in favor of Vose and against Harrison's claim for arrest authority.

In Robert M. Harrison, United States Consul v. George C. Vose, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a consular officer had authority to issue an arrest warrant for a person accused of violating U.S. laws in another country and then bring them back to the United States for trial or punishment without any other form of extradition treaty between that foreign nation and the United States existing at that time. The dissenting opinion argued that such power should not be granted as it would violate both international law and principles of comity among nations by allowing one nation to exercise jurisdiction over persons within another sovereign state's borders without its consent or permission; furthermore, it could lead to diplomatic disputes if two countries disagreed on how their citizens were being treated abroad by each other’s officials when no extradition treaty existed between them yet they still sought justice from each other’s courts through this method instead of negotiating an agreement first before taking action against someone who violated their laws while overseas in another country’s territory