In the case of Kirby v. United States, 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of William Kirby who was charged with harboring and concealing a fugitive slave. The court held that an indictment for harboring and concealing a fugitive from labor must allege ownership by someone capable under existing laws to claim service or labor from such alleged fugitive. It also stated that it is not sufficient to describe him as owing service or labor without stating to whom such service or labor is due. This decision established what became known as "the Kirby rule," which states that when federal law incorporates state law, it includes any interpretations of those laws by state courts at the time they were incorporated into federal statute.

In the dissenting opinion for Kirby v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and could potentially lead to abuses of power by federal officials. He contended that under common law, an arrest warrant must specify the person to be arrested with reasonable certainty. In this case, he believed it did not as there were two men named John Kirby in town and no further identifying information was provided on the warrant or by officers at time of arrest. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s view that resisting such an uncertain arrest would constitute assault on a federal officer. He warned this interpretation could allow any resistance against potential abuse from federal officers to be punished severely even if their actions were unlawful initially.