In the case of United States ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan, U.S. Marshal, et al., 1934, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to extradition and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner was a Russian national who had been living in New York City when he was arrested on charges of murder committed in Russia based on an extradition treaty between US and Soviet Union. He filed for habeas corpus relief arguing that his arrest violated his constitutional rights as there were no sufficient evidence against him provided by Russia and also because USSR did not provide similar protections to its citizens accused of crimes in America (reciprocity). However, the court ruled against him stating that it is not necessary for foreign countries to have identical legal systems or standards as those present within United States for an extradition treaty to be valid; what mattered was whether they adhered broadly to principles recognized by civilized nations.

In the dissenting opinion for the United States ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan case, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief to a man who was facing extradition to Turkey on charges of murder and robbery. He argued that there were serious questions about whether or not an extradition treaty between the U.S. and Turkey actually existed at all, given that it had been signed under Ottoman rule before modern-day Turkey came into existence as a republic in 1923. Furthermore, he pointed out that even if such a treaty did exist, it would be invalid because it violated due process rights by allowing for extradition without any evidence of guilt being presented in court first.