In the case of United States ex rel. Hughes v. Gault, Marshal (1925), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to extradition and habeas corpus petitions. The petitioner, Hughes, was held in custody by a U.S marshal following an extradition request from Canada where he faced charges for embezzlement. He filed a writ of habeas corpus arguing that his detention was unlawful as there were no valid charges against him in Canada at the time of his arrest in America. The court ruled against Hughes stating that it is not within its jurisdiction to determine whether or not criminal proceedings are pending abroad; rather its role is only to ascertain if there's reasonable ground for believing so based on presented evidence during extradition hearings. It further clarified that once such grounds have been established and certified by competent authorities under existing treaties or statutes, courts cannot intervene unless it appears beyond doubt that no crime has been committed or person demanded isn't one who committed alleged offense.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Hughes v. Gault, Justice Holmes argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it was a matter of state law rather than federal law. He contended that there was no violation of constitutional rights and thus, no grounds for federal intervention. The majority's decision to hear the case represented an unwarranted expansion of federal power into matters traditionally reserved for states' courts in his view. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of habeas corpus rights under U.S Constitution’s Suspension Clause which they used to justify hearing the case at all.