In the case of In re Buchanan, the petitioner was a lawyer who had been disbarred by the Supreme Court of Washington D.C. for professional misconduct. He petitioned to have his case reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that he was denied due process and equal protection under law as guaranteed by Fifth Amendment rights. The court rejected his claim stating that it lacked jurisdiction in this matter because decisions made regarding admission or disbarment from practice before inferior courts are not subject to review by higher courts unless there is legislation providing such authority. Furthermore, they clarified that while constitutional guarantees apply to actions taken directly against individuals' property or liberty, they do not extend to matters concerning qualifications for practicing a profession which are determined based on character and fitness assessments conducted within reasonable bounds set forth in relevant laws and regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Buchanan, the justice argued that the petitioner should not be extradited to Canada because his alleged crime was political in nature. The judge contended that extradition treaties were intended to cover ordinary criminal offenses and not politically motivated acts. He also pointed out inconsistencies between U.S. law and Canadian law regarding what constitutes a crime, arguing this discrepancy could lead to unfair treatment of American citizens abroad. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by foreign governments seeking extradition based on questionable charges or evidence. Ultimately, he believed it was essential for courts to scrutinize each case carefully before approving an extradition request in order to protect individual rights and uphold principles of justice.