In 1852, Justice Catron, joined by four other justices of the Supreme Court, wrote that "extradition without an unbiased hearing before an independent judiciary...[is] highly dangerous to liberty, and ought never to be allowed in this country."

A judicial officer who presides over an extradition proceeding "is not exercising `any part of the judicial power of the United States,'"

A] n Executive order of surrender to a foreign government is purely a national act,[it] is not open to controversy; nor can it be doubted that this executive act must be performed through the Secretary of State

Each of the other two cases was a writ of habeas corpus; and any person, whether a citizen or not, unlawfully restrained of his liberty, is entitled to that writ.

—noting the necessity of hot pursuit across the border between United States and British possessions in America based on treaty of 1842

Before and after the enactment in 1875 of the first statute regulating immigration, 18 Stat. 477, that jurisdiction was regularly invoked on behalf of noncitizens, particularly in the immigration context.

But such an order was reviewable in no form; and, besides, the authority of that case has been much shaken.

Strictly, then, Watkins is authority only as to this Court's power to issue the writ; the habeas jurisdiction of the other federal courts and judges, including the individual Justices of the Supreme Court, has generally been deemed original.

That the eventful history of Robbins's case had a controlling influence... especially on Congress, when it passed the act of 1848, is, as I suppose, free from doubt