In the United States Ex Rel. Drury v. Lewis case of 1905, the Supreme Court examined whether a prisoner could be extradited to another state if he was already serving a sentence in one state. The petitioner, Drury, was serving time in Pennsylvania when New Jersey requested his extradition for crimes committed there before his incarceration in Pennsylvania. He argued that he couldn't be extradited until after completing his current sentence and sought habeas corpus relief from the U.S Supreme Court. The court ruled against him stating that nothing prevented a person from being tried and punished for an offense committed within any jurisdiction of the United States even though they may have been convicted and sentenced for another crime elsewhere within its limits. Therefore, it held that states had concurrent authority over criminals who commit offenses across multiple jurisdictions; thus allowing New Jersey to request Drury's extradition despite him currently serving time in Pennsylvania.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect as it failed to consider key constitutional issues at stake in this case. He contended that a person should not be deprived of their liberty without due process of law and believed that Drury had been denied his right to a fair trial by being tried and convicted in absentia, which violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal jurisdiction over state court decisions, arguing instead for broader federal oversight when constitutional rights are potentially infringed upon by state courts.