In the case of New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, Sheriff of Kings County (1908), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with an extradition issue between two states - New York and Pennsylvania. The petitioner, Mr. Silz was arrested in New York on a warrant issued by the Governor based on a requisition from Pennsylvania's Governor for alleged larceny committed in Pennsylvania. He challenged his arrest and sought release through habeas corpus arguing that he had not fled from justice as required under Article IV Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution because he left Pennsylvania before any charges were filed against him there. The court ruled against Mr. Silz stating that it is not necessary for formal legal proceedings to be pending at the time when an accused leaves a state to constitute "fleeing from justice". It held that if someone commits a crime within one state and then leaves its jurisdiction with knowledge or reason to believe they have violated its laws, they can be considered as having fled from justice even if no indictment has been found or information filed at their departure time.

In the dissenting opinion for New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting out-of-state liquor sales violated both states' rights and individual liberties protected by the Constitution. The justice contended that this ruling allowed one state to impose its own moral standards on another, undermining principles of federalism and infringing upon personal freedoms guaranteed under due process laws. Furthermore, they believed that it was not within a state’s power to regulate interstate commerce in such a manner as it interfered with an individual’s right to engage in lawful business activities across state lines.