In the case of Neely v. Henkel, 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a warrant for extradition could be issued under a treaty between the United States and Cuba without an indictment or affidavit supporting probable cause. The defendant, Charles F.W. Neely had been charged with embezzlement in Cuba but fled to New York before he could be tried; hence, Cuban authorities sought his extradition from the U.S.. The court ruled that it is not necessary to have an indictment or affidavit as long as there is sufficient evidence of criminality according to terms set by treaties between countries involved in such cases. Therefore, Neely's arrest and detention were deemed lawful under international law principles governing extraditions.

In the dissenting opinion for Neely v. Henkel, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of extradition laws was incorrect and too broad. He contended that these laws were not intended to apply to territories like Cuba, which were under temporary military control of the United States but not formally incorporated into it as a territory or state. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such extraditions would violate principles of personal liberty by potentially subjecting individuals to foreign legal systems without their consent or adequate protections. He also expressed concern about potential abuses if this precedent allowed any country with de facto control over another region could demand extradition from there regardless of formal territorial status.