In the case of Williams v. Walsh, Sheriff of Crawford County, Kansas (1911), the United States Supreme Court addressed an issue concerning extradition law. The petitioner, Williams, was arrested in Missouri on a warrant from Kansas for grand larceny and forgery charges. He challenged his arrest and subsequent extradition to Kansas by filing a writ of habeas corpus in federal court arguing that he had not fled from justice as required under the U.S Constitution's Extradition Clause because he left Kansas before any charges were filed against him. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that it is not necessary for one to know they are being pursued or charged with a crime to be considered fleeing from justice under this clause; rather it is enough if they leave after committing crimes and before prosecution begins.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Williams v. Walsh, Sheriff of Crawford County, Kansas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns was an overreach of judicial authority and infringed upon free speech rights. The dissent contended that such contributions were a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment and should not be subject to government regulation or restriction. They further asserted that it is not within the purview of courts to determine what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate campaign financing practices; rather, this responsibility lies with legislative bodies who are better equipped to make these determinations based on public sentiment and policy considerations. In sum, they believed that corporate entities should have equal access as individuals do in expressing their views through financial support for candidates or causes they believe in.