In the 1909 case of In re Henry A. Cleland, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over jurisdiction and extradition laws. The petitioner, Henry A. Cleland was arrested in New York under an indictment for embezzlement from Michigan where he had been a bank officer. He challenged his arrest and potential extradition to Michigan on grounds that it violated his constitutional rights as there were no specific charges against him at the time of his arrest in New York. The court ruled against Cleland stating that once an individual is indicted by a grand jury, they are officially charged with a crime regardless if they have been formally notified or not. Furthermore, it held that states have full authority to demand return of fugitives without interference from federal courts unless there's evidence showing violation of constitutional rights which wasn't proven in this case. This decision reinforced state power regarding criminal justice matters while also clarifying aspects related to interstate rendition clause (extradition) within US constitution.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Henry A. Cleland, 1909, argued that the petitioner should not be held in contempt for refusing to answer certain questions during a grand jury investigation. The dissenting justices believed that the petitioner had a constitutional right to refuse to answer questions if he believed his answers could potentially incriminate him. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted 'compelling testimony,' arguing that forcing someone to speak under threat of punishment was inherently coercive and violated their Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, they contended that it was inappropriate for courts to make determinations about whether or not particular pieces of evidence were self-incriminating; this decision should be left up to individuals themselves who are best positioned understand their own circumstances and potential legal jeopardy.