In the case of Howe v. Smith, Attorney General et al., 1980, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on whether a state could constitutionally extradite an individual who had been granted immunity from prosecution in another jurisdiction. The petitioner, Howe, argued that his extradition by Maryland to Virginia violated his constitutional rights because he had previously received immunity from prosecution in federal court for crimes committed in Virginia. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that there is no constitutional requirement for one sovereign entity (in this case Maryland) to respect an act of amnesty or pardon given by another sovereign entity (the Federal Government). Therefore it upheld Maryland's right to extradite Howe back to Virginia where he faced charges related with murder and robbery.

In the dissenting opinion for Howe v. Smith, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Michigan law that allowed state officials to seize and sell property used in illegal drug activities without compensating the owner. He argued that this violated both due process and just compensation clauses of the Constitution. Brennan contended that forfeiture laws should be limited to cases where owners were aware their property was being used illegally or had not taken reasonable steps to prevent it from happening. He also believed such seizures constituted a form of punishment, which required procedural safeguards like notice and an opportunity for hearing before deprivation occurred. Furthermore, he asserted that even if these seizures were considered civil penalties rather than criminal punishments, they still amounted to takings requiring just compensation under Fifth Amendment principles.