In the case of Terlinden v. Ames in 1901, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on an extradition issue between the United States and Germany. The defendant, Mr. Terlinden, a German citizen residing in America, was accused by Germany of embezzlement and requested his extradition under a treaty signed with Prussia (which later became part of modern-day Germany) back in 1852. However, Terlinden argued that this treaty no longer applied since Prussia had ceased to exist as an independent entity after forming into the German Empire. The court ruled against him stating that despite political changes within its territory or government structure alterations over time; treaties remain valid unless explicitly terminated by both parties involved or if they become impossible to execute due to these changes which wasn't applicable here as per their judgment. Thus it upheld that international agreements like treaties are binding upon successor states until expressly revoked or modified through mutual consent even when there have been significant geopolitical shifts such as formation/merger/dissolution etc., thereby affirming US's obligation towards honoring its extradition agreement with Germany.

In the dissenting opinion for Terlinden v. Ames, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of extradition treaties was too broad and could potentially infringe upon individual rights. He contended that such treaties should be interpreted narrowly to ensure they do not exceed their intended purpose or violate constitutional protections. Specifically, he disagreed with the majority's view that an individual can be extradited for a crime committed before an extradition treaty was signed if it is not explicitly prohibited by the treaty itself. Instead, he believed this should only occur when expressly authorized by a treaty as it involves surrendering individuals to foreign governments where they may face different legal standards and protections than in America.