In the case of Michigan v. Doran, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on issues related to extradition between states. The court held that a governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that all constitutional and statutory requirements have been met, meaning it's sufficient proof unless disproven by contrary evidence. A person challenging their extradition can only raise four issues: (1) whether the documents are in order; (2) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) whether the petitioner is indeed who he or she is claimed to be; and (4) whether the petitioner was present in demanding state at time of commission of alleged crime. In this particular case, James Doran had challenged his arrest warrant from Arizona while he was residing in Michigan for crimes committed there but failed because these conditions were satisfied.

In the case of Michigan v. Doran, Justice William Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall, dissented from the majority opinion. They argued that a fugitive's claim that he or she was not in the demanding state at the time of crime should be considered as part of extradition proceedings. The dissenting justices believed this would provide an important safeguard against wrongful arrest and detention without unduly burdening interstate cooperation. They also disagreed with the majority’s view on limiting judicial review to four inquiries during extradition cases, arguing it undermines due process rights for defendants who may have valid defenses such as absence from demanding state when alleged crime occurred.