In the 1906 case of Tinsley v. Treat, United States Marshal, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning extradition procedures between states. The petitioner, Mr. Tinsley was arrested in Massachusetts under an indictment for murder committed in Kentucky and sought to avoid being extradited back to Kentucky by filing a habeas corpus petition arguing that his arrest warrant was invalid because it did not provide sufficient evidence of his guilt as required by law. However, the court held that once a governor has granted an extradition request based on proper documentation from another state's executive authority (in this case - Governor of Kentucky), courts cannot review whether there is enough evidence for conviction or trial but only if charges exist and are properly documented. Therefore, it upheld Mr.Tinsley’s extradition order stating that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over state criminal matters unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights which wasn't evident here.

In the dissenting opinion for Tinsley v. Treat, Justice Harlan argued that the petitioner should have been allowed to present his case in federal court because he was denied a fair trial at the state level due to racial prejudice. He believed that this denial of justice violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under law and thus warranted federal intervention. The majority held that since there were no procedural errors or violations of specific constitutional rights during Tinsley’s state trial, it could not be reviewed by a federal court. However, Harlan contended that systemic racism created an environment where black defendants like Tinsley couldn't receive a fair trial regardless of procedural correctness - an issue which he felt fell within purview of federal courts to correct.