In the United States Ex Rel. Boynton v. Blaine case of 1890, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving extradition between states. The petitioner, Boynton, was held in custody by Washington State authorities for alleged crimes committed in Illinois and sought release through habeas corpus proceedings. He argued that his detention violated federal law because he had not been formally charged with any crime in Illinois at the time of his arrest in Washington State. The court rejected this argument, ruling that an individual could be extradited from one state to another even if formal charges have not yet been filed against him or her in the demanding state. The decision clarified that while it is necessary for a person to be "substantially charged" with a crime before they can be extradited under federal law, this requirement does not necessitate formal legal proceedings such as indictment or preliminary hearing. This case thus established important precedent regarding interstate extradition procedures within U.S., affirming broad powers for states seeking return of individuals suspected of committing crimes within their jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Boynton v. Blaine, Justice Field disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus to an individual detained by U.S. authorities on charges brought by Canadian officials. He argued that international extradition treaties should be strictly interpreted and applied only in cases where there is clear evidence of criminal activity as defined by both countries involved in the treaty agreement. In this case, he believed that such evidence was lacking and therefore, it was inappropriate for U.S authorities to detain and extradite the accused individual based solely on allegations made by Canadian officials without proper legal proceedings or due process protections under American law.