In the 1923 case of Salinger, Jr. v. Loisel, the United States Supreme Court addressed issues related to extradition and habeas corpus rights. The petitioner, Salinger Jr., was arrested in Louisiana on charges from New York but contested his extradition on grounds that he had not been in New York at the time of alleged crime. He sought a writ of habeas corpus after being denied by lower courts. The Supreme Court held that when an individual is arrested under an executive warrant for their extradition to another state where they are charged with a crime, it's not necessary for them to have been present in that state at the time of commissioning said offense if they were found guilty there later on; this would be enough ground for their return as per interstate rendition laws (Article IV Section 2 Clause 2). Furthermore, once such a warrant has been issued by competent authority following due process and examination into its validity - any further inquiry into whether or not accused was actually within demanding state during offence is barred.

The dissenting opinion in Salinger Jr. v. Loisel, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying bail to an individual awaiting extradition was incorrect and violated basic principles of justice and fairness. The dissent contended that the accused should have been granted bail while waiting for his extradition hearing because he had not yet been convicted of any crime, thus preserving his presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It also pointed out potential issues with the evidence against him, suggesting it may be insufficient or unreliable for conviction purposes. Furthermore, they emphasized on the importance of personal liberty and cautioned against unnecessary detention without clear proof of guilt or risk factors justifying such action.