In the case of Nevada and New York v. Stacher, 1953, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could extradite an individual who had been charged with committing perjury during a grand jury investigation in another state. The defendant, Joseph Stacher, argued that he should not be extradited because his alleged crime did not meet the constitutional requirement for extradition as it was not a "Treason, Felony or other Crime." However, both states contended that perjury committed before a grand jury constituted sufficient grounds for extradition under their respective laws. The court ruled in favor of Nevada and New York stating that while perjury may not traditionally be considered as serious as treason or felony offenses such as murder or robbery; it is still classified by most jurisdictions as either a misdemeanor or felony offense depending on its severity and thus meets the criteria set forth in Article IV Section 2 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution which allows for interstate extradition.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Nevada and New York v. Stacher argued that the majority's decision to allow extradition was a violation of constitutional rights. The dissenters believed that there were significant issues with the way evidence had been collected, arguing it violated due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. They also raised concerns about potential bias in Nevada courts against defendants like Stacher who were accused of organized crime involvement, suggesting this could prevent him from receiving a fair trial. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly conspiracy laws were being applied in this case, asserting such an interpretation threatened civil liberties by potentially criminalizing innocent association or behavior.