The Kelly v. Griffin case in 1915 revolved around the issue of extradition between states, specifically Illinois and Wisconsin. The petitioner, Edward Kelly, was arrested in Illinois on a governor's warrant from Wisconsin charging him with embezzlement. He sought habeas corpus relief arguing that he had not been within the state of Wisconsin at any time during which it was alleged that he committed the crime. However, his petition for release was denied by both lower courts and eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that when an individual is charged with a crime in one state but found in another state, it is not necessary to prove that they were physically present in the demanding state at the time of committing said crime for extradition purposes under federal law or constitutionally required due process rights; rather this can be determined as part of their trial after being extradited back to where charges originated from. This ruling upheld principles established earlier regarding interstate rendition (extradition) procedures and reinforced states' abilities to retrieve fugitives who flee across borders following alleged criminal activity.

In the dissenting opinion for Kelly v. Griffin, it was argued that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to present evidence and argue his case in court before being extradited. The justice believed that extradition is a serious matter which could potentially result in severe consequences for the accused individual, including imprisonment or even death penalty if found guilty. Therefore, due process of law requires that such individuals be granted their day in court where they can challenge the validity of accusations against them and defend themselves effectively. This view held by the dissenting justice emphasizes on upholding constitutional rights over procedural expediency.