In the Matter of Gregory, Petitioner case in 1910, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving extradition law and its application to an individual named Gregory who was residing in Canada at the time. The Canadian government had arrested him based on a warrant issued by U.S authorities for alleged crimes committed while he was living in America. However, Gregory contested his arrest arguing that there were no formal charges against him when he left the United States and thus could not be extradited back to face trial under existing laws between both countries. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that it is immaterial whether or not an indictment has been filed prior to fleeing as long as sufficient evidence exists demonstrating probable cause for believing that person guilty of committing a crime. Therefore, if such evidence can be presented before competent judicial authority where fugitive is found then they may be rightfully detained pending further proceedings regarding their return.

The dissenting opinion in the Matter of Gregory case argued that the petitioner, a lawyer who had been disbarred for contemptuous behavior towards judges, should not have been punished so severely. The dissenting justices believed that while Gregory's actions were inappropriate and disrespectful, they did not warrant disbarring him from practicing law. They pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest he would repeat his offensive conduct in the future and emphasized that lawyers should be allowed some leeway when expressing their opinions about court decisions. Furthermore, they suggested that punishing an attorney by taking away his livelihood could potentially discourage other attorneys from speaking out against judicial decisions or actions they believe are unjust or incorrect.