In the 1919 case of Stallings v. Splain, United States Marshal in and for the District of Columbia, a writ of habeas corpus was sought by Mr. Stallings who had been arrested under an extradition warrant issued by the Secretary of State at the request of British authorities. The charges against him were related to fraudulent enlistment into military service during World War I while he was in Canada. The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter as it involved executive discretion regarding international relations and treaties between nations (in this case, U.S.-U.K.). Therefore, they could not review or interfere with decisions made by political branches such as those involving extradition requests from foreign governments unless there is clear violation or abuse of authority which wasn't evident here.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stallings v. Splain, United States Marshal in and for the District of Columbia, was not explicitly recorded or made available. Therefore, it is impossible to provide a summary of such an opinion. The Supreme Court's decision upheld that Stallings' arrest did not violate his constitutional rights as he had been arrested on reasonable grounds by law enforcement officials who believed he had committed a crime based on evidence at hand.