The U.S. Supreme Court case Miller v. Aderhold, Warden in 1932 revolved around the issue of whether a state could legally extradite an individual who had been charged with a crime but not yet convicted. The petitioner, Miller, was held in Georgia for extradition to California on charges of grand larceny and receiving stolen property. He challenged his detention arguing that he should be considered innocent until proven guilty and therefore couldn't be extradited based solely on charges without conviction. However, the court ruled against him stating that under the Federal Extradition Act (18 USC §3182), it is permissible to extradite someone merely accused of a crime as long as they are lawfully charged by an indictment or affidavit made before a magistrate judge. It further clarified that this does not violate any constitutional rights because being held for trial upon criminal charge isn’t punishment nor can it be equated with guilt; rather it’s part of due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Miller v. Aderhold, Justice Brandeis argued that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by his deportation order. He contended that due process was not followed because Miller was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself against allegations of being an active Communist Party member, which led to his deportation order under the Immigration Act of 1918. The justice believed that evidence used against Miller was obtained through unlawful search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause, violating Fourth Amendment protections. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s decision as it failed to consider whether membership in such organizations automatically implied intent to overthrow government violently - a crucial factor in determining if someone is deportable under said act. Thus, according to Justice Brandeis' dissenting view, this case represented an unjust application of immigration law and infringement on individual liberties protected by constitution.