The U.S. Supreme Court case Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales in 1912 revolved around the issue of jurisdiction and extradition between the United States and Mexico. The petitioner, Mr. Ochoa, was arrested in Texas for a crime allegedly committed in Mexico under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State based on an extradition treaty with Mexico. He sought habeas corpus relief arguing that he had been illegally detained because his alleged offense did not fall within those covered by the treaty's terms. However, it was determined that once a fugitive is found within U.S borders, it becomes solely an executive decision whether to surrender him or her to another country seeking their return for trial - this falls outside judicial review unless there are constitutional issues at stake which were absent here. Therefore, even if there might have been errors made during proceedings leading up to his arrest (such as misinterpretation of what crimes fell under the treaty), these would not be grounds for granting habeas corpus relief since they do not involve violation of any constitutional rights.

The dissenting opinion in the Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales case argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of Puerto Rican law, which they believed did not grant a right to appeal from an order denying bail. They contended that such orders were merely provisional and could be modified at any time by the judge who issued them, thus making it unnecessary for defendants to seek redress through appeals. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's view on whether federal courts should intervene in local matters, arguing that this was only appropriate when there was clear evidence of abuse or misuse of power by local authorities - something they felt had not been demonstrated in this case.