The Yordi v. Nolte case in 1909 involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of federal courts and extradition laws. Mr. Yordi, an Italian national, was arrested in San Francisco on charges of murder committed in Italy. The Italian government sought his extradition under a treaty between the U.S and Italy which allowed for such action if sufficient evidence was provided to justify trial had the crime been committed within U.S territory. Yordi's lawyers argued that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant his arrest or extradition as per American law standards; hence it should be dismissed by local courts before reaching federal level where international treaties were applicable. However, the Supreme Court ruled against this argument stating that once an individual is arrested under an international treaty agreement, only Federal Courts have jurisdiction over whether or not they can be extradited - regardless of how much evidence has been presented at time of arrest. This ruling reinforced supremacy clause (Article VI) of US constitution which states that all treaties made under authority of United States shall be supreme law across land; thus giving precedence to International Treaties above state laws when conflicts arise.

In the dissenting opinion for Yordi v. Nolte, it was argued that the court erred in its decision to deny Yordi's writ of habeas corpus. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how evidence had been obtained and used against Yordi during his trial. They contended that these issues violated his constitutional rights, specifically those protected under the Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constituted an 'unreasonable' search or seizure in this context, arguing for a more expansive understanding of these terms to better protect individual liberties from potential abuses by law enforcement officials.