In the 1914 case Henry v. Henkel, United States Marshal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an extradition issue involving a man named Charles F. W. Neely who was accused of embezzlement in Cuba while serving as a postal official during American occupation following the Spanish-American War. The appellant, James S.Henry (Neely's father-in-law), sought habeas corpus relief for Neely arguing that his detention and proposed extradition were illegal because they violated both international law and provisions of the U.S.-Cuba Treaty of Relations (1903). However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, rejected these arguments stating that under federal law and treaty obligations with Cuba at that time allowed such extraditions to occur without violating any rights or laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Henry v. Henkel, Justice Hughes argued that the majority's decision to allow extradition without a formal charge was an overreach of executive power and a violation of due process rights. He contended that allowing such extraditions would essentially permit foreign governments to demand any individual from U.S soil based on mere suspicion or accusation, which is contrary to principles of justice and fairness. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses by foreign powers who might use this as a tool for political persecution. In his view, it was essential for there to be some form of judicial review before an individual could be forcibly removed from their home country and subjected to potentially harsh treatment abroad.