In the 1892 case of In re Cross, petitioner, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether or not an individual could be extradited to Canada for trial on charges of forgery. The petitioner, Mr. Cross was arrested in New York and sought habeas corpus relief from extradition arguing that he had been previously tried and acquitted for the same offense in Canada which would make his extradition double jeopardy under US law. However, the court ruled against him stating that while it is true that American citizens cannot be subjected to double jeopardy as per Fifth Amendment rights; these protections do not extend beyond our borders nor are they applicable when dealing with foreign governments' requests for extradition based on their own laws and judicial proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Cross, Petitioner (1892) argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction by ruling on a matter that should have been left to state courts. The justices who dissented believed that federal courts did not have the authority to intervene in cases involving state laws unless there was a clear violation of constitutional rights. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of habeas corpus law, arguing it was too broad and could potentially lead to an abuse of power by federal judges. Furthermore, they expressed concern about undermining states' rights and disrupting the balance between state and federal powers established by the Constitution.