In the case of In re Heath, 1891, the petitioner was a U.S. citizen who had been convicted in Canada for embezzlement and fled to Detroit while on bail awaiting sentencing. The Canadian government sought his extradition under an 1842 treaty between Great Britain (which then ruled Canada) and the United States. The Supreme Court held that although embezzlement was not specifically listed as an extraditable offense in this treaty, it fell within the category of "larceny" which is included in it. Therefore, Mr. Heath could be extradited back to Canada to face punishment for his crime.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Heath, 1891, Justice Brewer argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over cases involving extradition of fugitives from one state to another. He contended that such matters were better left to individual states and their governors rather than being decided at a federal level. Brewer believed this was in line with the Constitution's intent of preserving states' rights and limiting federal power. He also expressed concern about potential abuses of power if all decisions regarding interstate extradition were made by a single entity (the Supreme Court). Furthermore, he pointed out practical issues: it would be burdensome for the court to review every extradition case due its limited resources and time constraints.