In the United States ex rel. Rutz v. Levy case of 1924, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning extradition and due process rights. The petitioner, Mr. Rutz, was arrested in California under an extradition warrant from New York for alleged grand larceny charges but claimed that he had not been given sufficient opportunity to challenge his arrest and potential transfer to New York before being taken into custody by U.S Marshals led by Marshal Levy. He filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that his detention was unlawful as it violated his constitutional right to due process. The Supreme Court disagreed with Rutz's argument stating that once a governor has granted an extradition request after determining its legality based on presented evidence, no further examination is required or permitted except where there are claims of identity mistake or if the accused was not within the demanding state at the time of crime commission - neither conditions applied in this case. Therefore, they upheld lower court rulings denying him relief and affirmed that federal courts have limited jurisdiction over state criminal proceedings including extraditions unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights which wasn't proven here.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. Rutz v. Levy, U.S. Marshal argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it failed to consider important factors related to due process rights and jurisdictional issues. The dissent emphasized that there were serious questions about whether the petitioner had been given a fair trial, including concerns about potential bias and prejudice on part of the jury members who decided his fate. Additionally, they pointed out inconsistencies in how federal law enforcement officials handled their responsibilities during this case which could have influenced its outcome unfairly against Mr.Rutz . They also questioned if proper legal procedures were followed when transferring him from state custody into federal hands for prosecution under an extradition treaty with Canada - something they believed might be unconstitutional without explicit authorization by Congress or clear precedent supporting such actions.