In McNamara v. Henkel, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a case involving extradition law. The petitioner, John J. McNamara, was arrested in New York under an extradition warrant from California where he was charged with dynamiting property and causing death. He sought habeas corpus relief arguing that his arrest violated due process because it occurred before any indictment or information had been filed against him in California and thus there were no formal charges pending at the time of his arrest for which he could be extradited back to California. The Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that while ordinarily a person cannot be arrested until after an indictment has been returned or an information filed, exceptions exist when it comes to interstate rendition (extradition). In such cases, all that is required is "a charge made" not necessarily "an accusation framed according to some technical requirement." Therefore, as long as there's reasonable ground to believe a crime has been committed by the accused within another state's jurisdiction who then fled its territory - these conditions are sufficient for lawful detention awaiting requisition from demanding state governor.

In the dissenting opinion for McNamara v. Henkel, Justice Hughes argued that the extradition of a U.S. citizen to another country should not be permitted without clear evidence of criminality and due process protections in place. He emphasized that an individual's rights as a U.S. citizen should not be compromised simply because they are accused of committing a crime abroad, especially when there is no concrete proof supporting these allegations or fair trial guarantees in the requesting country. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for American courts to rely on foreign laws when making decisions about extradition requests since this could potentially lead to unjust outcomes and violate constitutional principles.