The case Johnson v. Hoy, United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois in 1912 revolved around a dispute over property rights and jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Johnson, was an owner of land in Chicago that had been seized by the federal government under eminent domain laws to build a post office. Johnson argued that he was not adequately compensated for his property as required by law and sought redress from the courts. However, because this involved federal action on state territory, there were questions about which court had proper jurisdiction over the matter - state or federal? The Supreme Court ruled that since it involved actions taken under authority granted by Congress (i.e., eminent domain), it fell within federal jurisdiction even though it occurred within state boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnson v. Hoy, it was argued that the court had erred in its decision to deny Johnson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how his original trial was conducted and felt these errors warranted a new trial. They pointed out that Johnson had not been given an opportunity to challenge the legality of his detention before being extradited from Illinois to Indiana, which they saw as a violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of federal law regarding extradition between states; arguing instead that this law should be interpreted more broadly so as to protect individuals' constitutional rights against unlawful imprisonment and removal across state lines without proper legal procedures being followed.