The Peckham v. Henkel case in 1909 revolved around Rufus W. Peckham, who was indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States by bribing a public official and obstructing justice. He sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that he could not be extradited from New York to Florida because his alleged crimes were committed outside of Florida's jurisdiction. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that under federal law an individual can be tried where the crime has effects even if it is committed elsewhere; thus extradition was permissible. Furthermore, they held that bribery of a public official constituted as defrauding the government under existing statutes at the time.

In the dissenting opinion for Peckham v. Henkel, Justice Harlan argued that the extradition of Frederick A. Hyde to Puerto Rico was unconstitutional because it violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment. He contended that Hyde had a constitutional right to be tried in the state where he allegedly committed his crimes (New York), not in Puerto Rico where he had never been and which did not have a fully established system of American law at that time. Furthermore, Harlan pointed out inconsistencies in how different parts of U.S territories were treated under federal law regarding extraditions; some areas were considered foreign while others domestic without clear reasons or principles guiding these distinctions. This lack of uniformity, according to him, could lead to potential abuses and infringements on individual liberties protected by Constitution.