In the case of In re Chetwood, Petitioner (1896), the US Supreme Court addressed a dispute over jurisdiction. The petitioner, Mr. Chetwood, was charged with embezzlement in California but fled to Pennsylvania where he was arrested and held for extradition back to California. He petitioned for habeas corpus relief arguing that his arrest warrant from California did not have full faith and credit in Pennsylvania due to lack of proper authentication as required by federal law at that time. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that although there were irregularities in the way his arrest warrant had been authenticated under federal law, these did not affect its validity under state law which allowed warrants issued by any judge or magistrate within United States territory. Therefore, it upheld his detention pending extradition back to California on grounds of comity among states rather than constitutional obligation. This decision clarified how interstate rendition proceedings should be conducted and affirmed states' rights over their own criminal justice processes even when they intersect with federal laws or procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Chetwood, Justice Harlan argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over this case. He believed that it was a matter of state law and should be handled by California courts. The petitioner had been charged with embezzlement in China, but he fled to San Francisco before his trial could take place. The U.S. government sought to extradite him back to China under an existing treaty between the two countries which allowed for extradition in cases of embezzlement. However, Justice Harlan disagreed with this interpretation of the treaty because at the time it was signed, embezzlement wasn't considered a crime under Chinese law and thus couldn't be included as an extraditable offense within their agreement's scope. Therefore, according to Harlan’s view on international treaties' interpretation principles and respect towards states’ rights within federalism framework, Chetwood shouldn’t have been subject to extradition proceedings initiated by Federal authorities based on charges from foreign jurisdictions.