In the case of Marshall, Governor of the State of Indiana v. Dye in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state governor had legal authority to extradite an individual accused but not convicted of a crime from one state to another. The defendant, Dye, was wanted for alleged crimes in Kentucky and fled to Indiana where he was arrested on request by Kentucky's governor. However, Dye argued that since he hadn't been convicted yet in any court for these charges and because there were no pending indictments against him at that time in Kentucky courts; his extradition would be unlawful under both federal law (Extradition Act) and constitutionally protected rights. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against this argument stating that it is within a governor’s power to surrender an individual charged with committing felonies or other high crimes upon demand from another state's executive authority without requiring prior conviction or indictment proceedings as per Article IV Section II Clause II (also known as Extradition Clause) of US Constitution along with Federal Extradition Act provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Marshall, Governor of the State of Indiana v. Dye in 1913, Justice Holmes disagreed with his colleagues' decision to uphold a state law that allowed for involuntary sterilization. He argued that such laws violated an individual's constitutional right to personal liberty and privacy. Furthermore, he contended that there was no compelling evidence proving these procedures would actually achieve their intended goal - reducing crime rates or improving societal health by eliminating 'undesirable' genetic traits from future generations. Holmes also expressed concern about potential misuse and abuse of this power by government authorities who might use it as a tool for social control rather than public welfare purposes.