In the case of The State of North Dakota ex rel. Flaherty v. Hanson, Sheriff of Grand Forks County (1909), the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over extradition between states. A man named Flaherty was arrested in North Dakota on charges from Minnesota and sought to prevent his extradition back to that state by filing for habeas corpus relief, arguing that he had been unlawfully detained. However, the court ruled against him, stating that under Article IV Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution - also known as Extradition Clause - it is mandatory for any person charged in one state but found in another to be delivered up and removed to the demanding state upon request by its executive authority. The decision upheld principles regarding interstate cooperation and respect for each other's legal processes.

In the dissenting opinion for The State of North Dakota ex rel. Flaherty v. Hanson, Sheriff of Grand Forks County, 1909 case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting migratory game birds and transporting them across state lines violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that once these birds were killed and prepared for market they became articles of commerce subject to federal regulation rather than local or state control. They contended that states did not have exclusive ownership over wildlife within their borders but held them in trust for their citizens; therefore, restrictions on out-of-state hunters constituted discrimination against interstate commerce which is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.