The U.S. Supreme Court case Kaizo v. Henry, High Sheriff of Hawaii in 1908 revolved around the issue of extradition between Japan and the United States under a treaty signed by both nations in 1894. The petitioner, Kaizo, was arrested in Honolulu on charges from Japanese authorities for crimes committed there and sought to prevent his extradition back to Japan. He argued that he could not be extradited because the crime he was accused of (embezzlement) did not fall within those listed as extraditable offenses under the treaty's terms at that time. However, his argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court too which held that embezzlement fell within "larceny" - an offense explicitly mentioned as grounds for extradition in said treaty. Therefore it upheld Kaizo's arrest warrant issued by Hawaiian authorities acting upon request from their Japanese counterparts. This decision reinforced international cooperation against criminal activities through honoring bilateral treaties while also highlighting how such agreements can be interpreted expansively rather than restrictively when dealing with issues like defining what constitutes an 'extraditable offense'.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kaizo v. Henry, High Sheriff of Hawaii, 1908 argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent maintained that the petitioner should have been granted a writ of habeas corpus because his detention by Hawaiian authorities violated his constitutional rights under U.S law. They contended that since Hawaii had become a territory of the United States at the time of Kaizo's arrest and trial, he was entitled to all protections afforded by U.S Constitution including due process and equal protection clauses. Therefore, they believed it was unconstitutional for him to be tried without being informed about charges against him or given an opportunity to defend himself in court as required by American laws.