In the 1906 case New York, ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state could extradite an individual for trial in another state based on crimes allegedly committed there. The petitioner, Hatch, had been arrested in New York and was facing extradition to Massachusetts where he faced charges of larceny and embezzlement from his former employer. He argued that since he had not fled from Massachusetts but rather left before any alleged crime occurred or any charge made against him, he should not be subject to extradition as a fugitive from justice under Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution. The court ruled against Hatch stating that it is immaterial when one leaves a state if they are later charged with committing a crime while present there; what matters is their refusal to return once charges have been filed makes them effectively "fugitives". Therefore they can be extradited back for trial regardless of when or why they initially left.

In the dissenting opinion for New York, ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus to Mr. Hatch who was arrested in New York on charges from Missouri without an opportunity for trial in his home state of New York first. He argued that this violated Mr. Hatch's constitutional rights under both federal and state law as he should have been allowed a hearing before being extradited to another state where he could potentially face harsher punishment than if tried in his own jurisdiction. Furthermore, Justice Harlan expressed concern over potential abuses of power by states seeking extradition based solely on accusations rather than evidence or due process, which could lead to unjust imprisonment or even wrongful convictions.