Malcolm Rivera
The Extradition Clause, also known as the Interstate Rendition Clause, is part of Article IV of the US Constitution, which outlines the relationships between the states. The clause requires that a person charged with a crime who flees from one state to another must be returned to the state where the crime was committed upon the demand of the executive authority of that state. The Extradition Clause has been the subject of several Supreme Court cases, including Kentucky v. Dennison in the 19th century and Puerto Rico v. Branstad in 1987, which clarified the power of federal courts to enforce extraditions. The legality of extradition can be complex, and it is recommended to seek legal advice from an experienced lawyer.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name | Extradition Clause (also referred to as the Interstate Rendition Clause) |
| Location | Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution |
| Function | Normalises legal processes among the states |
| Application | Requires that a person charged with a crime in one state who flees to another state must be returned to the charging state upon demand |
| Implementation | Not self-executing, and Congress has no express power to implement it; however, the Extradition Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3182, requires the governor of each state to deliver fugitives to the demanding state |
| Defenses | Limited defenses exist, but include ensuring proper documentation, accurate identification, and confirmation that the fugitive has been charged with a crime |
| Role of Courts | Federal courts can enforce extraditions, as ruled in Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987), overruling Kentucky v. Dennison (1860/1861) |
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
The Extradition Clause
> "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having Jurisdiction of the Crime."
This clause applies to any person accused of a crime in one state who then flees to another state. The governor of the state where the crime was committed can demand the return of the accused, and the other state must comply. The motive behind the fugitive's departure is immaterial, and even if they are brought to the second state involuntarily, they can still be surrendered to the demanding state.
The legality of extradition has been the subject of several Supreme Court cases, including Kentucky v. Dennison in 1860/1861, which established that while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive, they could not be compelled to do so through a writ of mandamus. This decision was reversed in 1987 in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, where the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could enforce extraditions due to the Extradition Clause.
Understanding Employee Contributions to SEP Plans
You may want to see also
Fugitive Extradition
The constitutional basis for extradition in the United States can be found in the Extradition Clause (also known as the Interstate Rendition Clause), which is outlined in Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The Extradition Clause states that if a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the governor of the state where the crime was committed can demand the return of that person, and the fugitive must be returned to the charging state. This clause was unanimously approved at the Constitutional Convention with little debate and has remained nearly unchanged since.
The Extradition Clause is not self-executing, and Congress has not been expressly granted the power to implement it. However, in 1793, the Second Congress passed a law, now known as the Extradition Act, which requires the governor of each state to deliver fugitives from justice found in their state upon lawful demand from another state. This Act extends beyond the terms of the Extradition Clause by requiring the rendition of fugitives at the request of a demanding territory or state. The current interstate Extradition Act is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3182.
The Extradition Clause and Act have been tested in several Supreme Court cases, including Kentucky v. Dennison in 1860 and Puerto Rico v. Branstad in 1987. In Kentucky v. Dennison, a man who had committed a crime by helping a slave escape fled to Ohio, and the governor of Ohio refused to extradite him back to Kentucky. The Supreme Court ruled that while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, they could not be compelled to do so through a writ of mandamus. However, in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, the Court reversed its position, holding that federal courts could enforce the Extradition Clause and overruling the decision in Kentucky v. Dennison as outdated and no longer applicable.
Unveiling Unbranched Isomer Structures: Constitutional Complexity
You may want to see also
Supreme Court Cases
The Extradition Clause, or Interstate Rendition Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It provides for the extradition of an accused criminal back to the state where they allegedly committed a crime. The clause covers treason, felony, or other crime, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the crimes for which a person is subject to extradition very broadly, to include every offence punishable by law in the state where the crime was committed.
The Extradition Clause was first tested before the Supreme Court in the case of Kentucky v. Dennison (1860 or 1861). This case involved a man named Willis Lago, who was wanted in Kentucky for helping a slave girl escape. He fled to Ohio, where the governor, William Dennison, Jr., refused to extradite him back to Kentucky. The Supreme Court held that, while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, a governor could not be compelled through a writ of mandamus to do so. Practically, this meant that federal courts could not issue court orders to force governors to comply with the Extradition Clause.
In 1934, Congress made it a federal crime for any person to flee from one state to another to avoid prosecution in certain cases, plugging the loophole created by Dennison. However, it was not until 1987 that the Dennison case was formally overruled by the Supreme Court in Puerto Rico v. Branstad. In this case, an Iowa man had struck and killed a pregnant woman in Puerto Rico, then fled back to his home state. The governor of Puerto Rico requested that Iowa return the fugitive, but the governor of Iowa refused, citing the precedent set in Kentucky v. Dennison. The Supreme Court reversed its previous position, holding that the decision in Kentucky v. Dennison was outdated and no longer applicable. The Court ruled that the governor of Iowa had no discretion in performing his duty to extradite the fugitive to Puerto Rico.
Other notable Supreme Court cases related to the Extradition Clause include New York ex rel Kopel v. Bingham (1909), where the Court held that legislative extensions to the Extradition Clause were permissible, and Ableman v. Booth (1859), where the Court overturned decisions by high courts in Wisconsin and Ohio that had held the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional.
Immigrants' Rights: What Does the Constitution Say?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Federal Law
Extradition in the United States is governed by federal law, specifically the Extradition Clause of the Constitution, which falls under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, also known as the Interstate Rendition Clause. This clause outlines the process for surrendering a fugitive from one state to another, ensuring that individuals accused or convicted of crimes are tried and punished within the jurisdiction of the state where the offence occurred.
The Extradition Clause states that:
> "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."
This clause applies when an individual accused or convicted of a crime in one state flees to another state. The governor of the asylum state, or the state where the fugitive is found, is required to surrender the fugitive to the demanding state, or the state where the crime was committed. This process is known as interstate rendition.
The Extradition Clause is not self-executing, and Congress did not initially have the express power to implement it. However, in 1793, the Second Congress passed the Extradition Act, which requires the governor of each state to deliver fugitives from justice upon lawful demand from another state. The current interstate Extradition Act is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3182.
It is important to note that the Extradition Act extends beyond the terms of the Extradition Clause. The Act requires the rendition of fugitives not only to other states but also to demanding territories. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of this legislative extension.
In addition to federal law, each state has its own extradition laws and procedures. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), which has been adopted by 48 states, provides a framework for extradition that is more flexible than federal law. States can use their own standards for extradition as long as they do not exceed the limits set by federal law.
Florida Diploma: Constitution Test Requirement Explained
You may want to see also
Defenses to Extradition
The Extradition Clause in the US Constitution requires states, upon demand of another state, to deliver a fugitive from justice who has committed a "treason, felony or other crime" to the state from which the fugitive has fled. While there are few defenses to extradition, the following are some examples of defenses that have been identified by the Supreme Court:
- Identity Challenges: The individual may argue that they are not the person named in the extradition request.
- Procedural Defects: The defense may challenge flaws in the paperwork or argue that the requesting state has not complied with the necessary legal procedures.
- Lack of Probable Cause: If there is no valid probable cause for the charges, extradition may be contested.
- Habeas Corpus: A legal procedure initiated by an individual to test the legality of their detention by the government. The procedure is contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et. seq.
- Treaty Relations: Foreign countries may not have official treaty relations with individual states; they may only have treaty relations with the federal government.
In addition to the above, there are other technical defenses that can be raised, such as challenging the authenticity of the documents or arguing that the person has not been formally charged.
Exploring Philadelphia's National Constitution Center: A Visitor's Guide
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Extradition Clause, also known as the Interstate Rendition Clause, is part of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It requires that a person charged with a crime who flees from one state to another must be returned to the state where the crime was committed if that state's governor demands their return.
Kentucky v. Dennison (1860/1861) is a significant case that interpreted the Extradition Clause. It involved a man who helped a slave escape and then fled to another state. The Court held that while the governor of the asylum state had a duty to return the fugitive, they could not be compelled to do so through a writ of mandamus. This decision was later reversed in Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987), where the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could enforce extraditions under the Extradition Clause.
There are limited defences to extradition, but some recognised by the Supreme Court include:
- Whether the extradition request documents are in order.
- Whether the demanding state has charged the person with a crime.
- Whether the person named in the request is the person charged with the crime.
- Whether the petitioner is actually a fugitive from the requesting state.
Federal law, including the Extradition Act (18 U.S.C. § 3182) and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), provides additional requirements and guidelines for extradition between states. Federal courts can enforce these laws and ensure compliance with the Extradition Clause.
