Petitioner
United States
Respondent
Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain
Petitioner's Claim
That U.S. courts have jurisdiction over internationally abducted criminal defendants when not taken in explicit violation of an extradition treaty.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Kenneth Winston Starr, U.S. Solicitor General
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Paul L. Hoffman
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
15 June 1992
Decision
Upheld the United States claim and overturned two lower court's decisions prohibiting the prosecution of a foreign national due to violation of the spiritof an extradition treaty.
Significance
The ruling established that foreign citizens who commit crimes against U.S. citizens outside U.S. boundaries still come under jurisdiction of U.S. courtseven when forcibly abducted from their country over official protests of thatnation. Abducted defendants can still receive fair trials under the Due Process Clause. Government-sponsored abductions of another country's citizens inabsence of explicit treaty prohibitions was approved. The Court, relying solely on U.S. domestic law precedents while ignoring international law, held that international implications were more appropriately the concern of the executive branch. The abduction and Court decision led to an outcry from other nations and efforts in the United States to restrict further foreign abductions.
Treaties between the United States and foreign governments hold a unique place in the U.S. legal system by residing both in American domestic law and international relations. Created by the executive branch of the government ratherthan Congress, these agreements need only receive Senate approval. Legal disputes often involve conflicts between America's exercise of political independence, domestic law, and international law. A common form of treaty is the extradition treaty that provides a process a country can use to turn over jurisdiction of an individual within their territorial boundaries to another nation. Such treaties commonly seek to establish mutual respect of boundaries andmaintain political sovereignty. Abductions without consent are rarely acceptable.
Prior to the 1990s, two landmark cases in extradition and international abductions had been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, both in 1886. Ker v. Illinois involved the forcible abduction by a private individual of a U.S. citizen in Peru wanted on embezzlement charges in Illinois. Ker argued he hada right to be returned to the United States only through the existing extradition treaty with Peru. The Court did not accept Ker's claim of due process violation by ruling that forcible abduction does not prevent a person answeringto the charges brought before the court. Furthermore, Peru had not protestedthe abduction. Also in 1886, the Court ruled in United States v. Rauscher that a person extradited under a treaty could only be prosecuted for thecrimes for which he was extradited. U.S. jurisdiction did not exist if termsof an extradition treaty were violated.
Years later, in 1952, the Court ruled on a case in which a defendant kidnapped in Chicago by Michigan law officers was brought to trial in Michigan. The defendant argued his rights were violated under the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment. However, the Court again held that "the power of a court totry a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a 'forcible abduction.'"Judges were not required to consider how defendants got into their courtrooms. Due process only applied to the defendant being appropriately informed of the charges and given a fair trial. The Court held that nothing in the Constitution prohibited the government from convicting a person who was brought to trial against his will. Decisions in the Ker (1886) and Frisbie(1952) cases became known as the Ker-Frisbie doctrine recognizing jurisdiction over forcibly abducted criminal defendants.
In 1978, the United States and Mexico signed a new extradition treaty. In February of 1985 U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Enrique Camarena-Salazar and his pilot, Alfredo Zavala-Avelar, were kidnapped outside the American Consulate in Guadalajara, Mexico while investigating a drug case. A month later their mutilated bodies were discovered. In the following years several people in the United States and Mexico were charged in connection with the brutal murders and the drug trafficking activities that Camarena had beeninvestigating. Unsuccessfully, DEA officials had informally negotiated with the Mexican government regarding transport of one of those charged, a medicaldoctor named Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, to the United States for trial. Finally, in April of 1990, Machain was forcibly kidnapped by several armed Mexican bounty hunters from his medical office in Guadalajara and flown in a private plane to El Paso, Texas where he was arrested by DEA officials. Machain was charged in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles with kidnapping and murderof the agent. The U.S. government charged that Machain participated in the murder by medically prolonging Avelar's life so that the torture and interrogation could continue. The Mexican government immediately requested an officialreport from the United States describing the government's role in the abduction. Mexico also sent two diplomatic notes the months following requesting Machain's extradition from the United States for prosecution in Mexico and theextradition of individuals involved in Machain's abduction for prosecution onkidnapping charges.
In his trial, Machain argued "the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him because he was abducted in violation of the extradition treaty between theUnited States and Mexico." The court agreed with Machain by concluding thatDEA agents had orchestrated the abduction therefore violating the treaty. Thecourt, finding it lacked jurisdiction, ordered Machain returned to Mexico. The United States appealed the decision. The court of appeals concurred with the earlier ruling by finding the "purpose" of the treaty was violated by theforcible abduction. The United States then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Abduction an Option
The primary government argument before the Court was not that the treaty authorized abduction of Mexican citizens by U.S. authorities, but that it did notprohibit such abductions. Machain argued the treaty did not expressly recognize the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, and in fact, Article 9 of the treaty allowed for Mexico to deny U.S. extradition requests. The Court, therefore, deliberated which applied, the Ker-Frisbie doctrine recognizing jurisdiction over abducted defendants or the Rauscher (1886) decision denying jurisdiction if a treaty was violated.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the majority in a 6-3 vote.A key finding by Rehnquist was that Mexico had been made aware of the Ker-Frisbie doctrine as early as 1906. As to whether Mexico accepted or recognized the legal principle was not an issue. Rehnquist wrote, therefore, the treaty merely established one option available to obtain a suspect in additionto forcible abduction. Rehnquist concluded the abduction may have been "shocking" and may have violated "general international law principles." However,those matters were for the executive branch to address and not the subject ofthe Court. The Court was only to determine the relationship of the abductionto the treaty. In that regard, the abduction was found not in violation of the treaty and the Ker-Frisbie doctrine fully applied. The forced abduction did not negate a fair trial under U.S. court jurisdiction. The court ofappeals decision was reversed and the case remanded back to the district court for trial.
A Monstrous Decision
Justice Stevens, joined in dissent by Justices Blackmun and O'Connor, wrote that the majority simply chose to ignore Mexico's interpretation of the 1978 treaty. The treaty plainly stated its purpose was to foster closer working relationships regarding crime fighting and extradition matters. Such neglect bythe majority negated the whole purpose of extradition treaties which is to maintain harmonious working relationships, prevent international conflict, andprotect nations from invasions by other countries. Based on this general understanding of international law, Stevens concluded, "it is difficult to see how an interpretation that encourages unilateral action could foster cooperation and mutual assistance." Stevens noted that Mexico had already prosecuted several individuals for Camarena's murder. In addition, he found significant differences in this case and the Ker and Frisbie cases. In Ker, the U.S. government was not involved in the abduction and Peru did notprotest. The Frisbie case only involved state boundaries, not national. Stevens thus noted the "Court's failure to differentiate between private abductions and official invasion of another sovereigns territory" representing"flagrant violation of international law." According to Stevens, the two lower courts had appropriately applied Rauscher to this case. They came tothe logical conclusion that the extradition treaty with Mexico was intendedto establish the exclusive means of transferring jurisdictions of individualsand should be interpreted from the perspective of both countries. In conclusion, Stevens lamented that "most courts throughout the civilized world--willbe deeply disturbed by the 'monstrous' decision" of the Court.
Impact
The Machain case was a highly publicized international abduction owingin part to the unusual use of bounty hunters by U.S. officials. The United States had directly orchestrated the abduction of a Mexican citizen on Mexicansoil against the wishes of the Mexican government.
The abduction and trial severely strained relations between the United Statesand Mexico and attracted substantial negative international reaction of notonly allies, but Iran and China as well, concerning human rights issues. Thedistrict court, in the retrial, dismissed the charges against Machain for lack of evidence.
The decision demonstrated the Court's increasing tendency to rule in favor ofthe United States in foreign treaty disputes and diverge from the international standards of good faith and liberal interpretation. To the astonishment of the international law community, the Court derived its decision in Machain entirely from its own previous decisions, avoiding any use of relevantdecisions by courts of other nations. As this and the Itel Containers International Corporation v. Huddleston (1993) case the following year clearly indicated, foreign governments' interpretations of treaties carried littleweight in American courts. Even sections on treaty interpretation in the 1980 Vienna Convention were overlooked. In stark contrast to foreign courts as noted by Stevens' dissent, the Court treated a case with international implications solely as a domestic case with domestic precedents and domestic answers.
Treaty cases heard by the Court in the late 1980s and early 1990s demonstrated the exceptional degree the Court yielded to the wishes of the executive branch. The Court, recognizing the constitutional role of the president in establishing treaties, in effect implicitly applied the "political question doctrine." In other words, international treaty disputes were considered matters for the president and Congress to decide and should not be the subject of courtrulings.
Given the Court's position, international kidnapping proved to be an attractive tool for U.S. law officials seeking to avoid lengthy extradition procedures in obtaining suspects or when dealing with uncooperative governments. At times the abductions were quietly sanctioned by sympathetic governments where extradition was not popular with its citizens. Such abductions were particularly useful in fighting international drug crime.
The Machain case raised questions of how the United States should regulate its police activities in other countries, the president's role in foreign relations, and treatment of foreign defendants in U.S. courts. Legislativesolutions were immediately but unsuccessfully sought after the Machaindecision. Legislators introduced a bill in Congress in 1992 forbidding prosecution of persons abducted by U.S. officials in violation of treaty terms ordespite government protests.
Related Cases
United States
Respondent
Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain
Petitioner's Claim
That U.S. courts have jurisdiction over internationally abducted criminal defendants when not taken in explicit violation of an extradition treaty.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Kenneth Winston Starr, U.S. Solicitor General
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Paul L. Hoffman
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
15 June 1992
Decision
Upheld the United States claim and overturned two lower court's decisions prohibiting the prosecution of a foreign national due to violation of the spiritof an extradition treaty.
Significance
The ruling established that foreign citizens who commit crimes against U.S. citizens outside U.S. boundaries still come under jurisdiction of U.S. courtseven when forcibly abducted from their country over official protests of thatnation. Abducted defendants can still receive fair trials under the Due Process Clause. Government-sponsored abductions of another country's citizens inabsence of explicit treaty prohibitions was approved. The Court, relying solely on U.S. domestic law precedents while ignoring international law, held that international implications were more appropriately the concern of the executive branch. The abduction and Court decision led to an outcry from other nations and efforts in the United States to restrict further foreign abductions.
Treaties between the United States and foreign governments hold a unique place in the U.S. legal system by residing both in American domestic law and international relations. Created by the executive branch of the government ratherthan Congress, these agreements need only receive Senate approval. Legal disputes often involve conflicts between America's exercise of political independence, domestic law, and international law. A common form of treaty is the extradition treaty that provides a process a country can use to turn over jurisdiction of an individual within their territorial boundaries to another nation. Such treaties commonly seek to establish mutual respect of boundaries andmaintain political sovereignty. Abductions without consent are rarely acceptable.
Prior to the 1990s, two landmark cases in extradition and international abductions had been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, both in 1886. Ker v. Illinois involved the forcible abduction by a private individual of a U.S. citizen in Peru wanted on embezzlement charges in Illinois. Ker argued he hada right to be returned to the United States only through the existing extradition treaty with Peru. The Court did not accept Ker's claim of due process violation by ruling that forcible abduction does not prevent a person answeringto the charges brought before the court. Furthermore, Peru had not protestedthe abduction. Also in 1886, the Court ruled in United States v. Rauscher that a person extradited under a treaty could only be prosecuted for thecrimes for which he was extradited. U.S. jurisdiction did not exist if termsof an extradition treaty were violated.
Years later, in 1952, the Court ruled on a case in which a defendant kidnapped in Chicago by Michigan law officers was brought to trial in Michigan. The defendant argued his rights were violated under the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment. However, the Court again held that "the power of a court totry a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a 'forcible abduction.'"Judges were not required to consider how defendants got into their courtrooms. Due process only applied to the defendant being appropriately informed of the charges and given a fair trial. The Court held that nothing in the Constitution prohibited the government from convicting a person who was brought to trial against his will. Decisions in the Ker (1886) and Frisbie(1952) cases became known as the Ker-Frisbie doctrine recognizing jurisdiction over forcibly abducted criminal defendants.
In 1978, the United States and Mexico signed a new extradition treaty. In February of 1985 U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Enrique Camarena-Salazar and his pilot, Alfredo Zavala-Avelar, were kidnapped outside the American Consulate in Guadalajara, Mexico while investigating a drug case. A month later their mutilated bodies were discovered. In the following years several people in the United States and Mexico were charged in connection with the brutal murders and the drug trafficking activities that Camarena had beeninvestigating. Unsuccessfully, DEA officials had informally negotiated with the Mexican government regarding transport of one of those charged, a medicaldoctor named Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, to the United States for trial. Finally, in April of 1990, Machain was forcibly kidnapped by several armed Mexican bounty hunters from his medical office in Guadalajara and flown in a private plane to El Paso, Texas where he was arrested by DEA officials. Machain was charged in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles with kidnapping and murderof the agent. The U.S. government charged that Machain participated in the murder by medically prolonging Avelar's life so that the torture and interrogation could continue. The Mexican government immediately requested an officialreport from the United States describing the government's role in the abduction. Mexico also sent two diplomatic notes the months following requesting Machain's extradition from the United States for prosecution in Mexico and theextradition of individuals involved in Machain's abduction for prosecution onkidnapping charges.
In his trial, Machain argued "the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him because he was abducted in violation of the extradition treaty between theUnited States and Mexico." The court agreed with Machain by concluding thatDEA agents had orchestrated the abduction therefore violating the treaty. Thecourt, finding it lacked jurisdiction, ordered Machain returned to Mexico. The United States appealed the decision. The court of appeals concurred with the earlier ruling by finding the "purpose" of the treaty was violated by theforcible abduction. The United States then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Abduction an Option
The primary government argument before the Court was not that the treaty authorized abduction of Mexican citizens by U.S. authorities, but that it did notprohibit such abductions. Machain argued the treaty did not expressly recognize the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, and in fact, Article 9 of the treaty allowed for Mexico to deny U.S. extradition requests. The Court, therefore, deliberated which applied, the Ker-Frisbie doctrine recognizing jurisdiction over abducted defendants or the Rauscher (1886) decision denying jurisdiction if a treaty was violated.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the majority in a 6-3 vote.A key finding by Rehnquist was that Mexico had been made aware of the Ker-Frisbie doctrine as early as 1906. As to whether Mexico accepted or recognized the legal principle was not an issue. Rehnquist wrote, therefore, the treaty merely established one option available to obtain a suspect in additionto forcible abduction. Rehnquist concluded the abduction may have been "shocking" and may have violated "general international law principles." However,those matters were for the executive branch to address and not the subject ofthe Court. The Court was only to determine the relationship of the abductionto the treaty. In that regard, the abduction was found not in violation of the treaty and the Ker-Frisbie doctrine fully applied. The forced abduction did not negate a fair trial under U.S. court jurisdiction. The court ofappeals decision was reversed and the case remanded back to the district court for trial.
A Monstrous Decision
Justice Stevens, joined in dissent by Justices Blackmun and O'Connor, wrote that the majority simply chose to ignore Mexico's interpretation of the 1978 treaty. The treaty plainly stated its purpose was to foster closer working relationships regarding crime fighting and extradition matters. Such neglect bythe majority negated the whole purpose of extradition treaties which is to maintain harmonious working relationships, prevent international conflict, andprotect nations from invasions by other countries. Based on this general understanding of international law, Stevens concluded, "it is difficult to see how an interpretation that encourages unilateral action could foster cooperation and mutual assistance." Stevens noted that Mexico had already prosecuted several individuals for Camarena's murder. In addition, he found significant differences in this case and the Ker and Frisbie cases. In Ker, the U.S. government was not involved in the abduction and Peru did notprotest. The Frisbie case only involved state boundaries, not national. Stevens thus noted the "Court's failure to differentiate between private abductions and official invasion of another sovereigns territory" representing"flagrant violation of international law." According to Stevens, the two lower courts had appropriately applied Rauscher to this case. They came tothe logical conclusion that the extradition treaty with Mexico was intendedto establish the exclusive means of transferring jurisdictions of individualsand should be interpreted from the perspective of both countries. In conclusion, Stevens lamented that "most courts throughout the civilized world--willbe deeply disturbed by the 'monstrous' decision" of the Court.
Impact
The Machain case was a highly publicized international abduction owingin part to the unusual use of bounty hunters by U.S. officials. The United States had directly orchestrated the abduction of a Mexican citizen on Mexicansoil against the wishes of the Mexican government.
The abduction and trial severely strained relations between the United Statesand Mexico and attracted substantial negative international reaction of notonly allies, but Iran and China as well, concerning human rights issues. Thedistrict court, in the retrial, dismissed the charges against Machain for lack of evidence.
The decision demonstrated the Court's increasing tendency to rule in favor ofthe United States in foreign treaty disputes and diverge from the international standards of good faith and liberal interpretation. To the astonishment of the international law community, the Court derived its decision in Machain entirely from its own previous decisions, avoiding any use of relevantdecisions by courts of other nations. As this and the Itel Containers International Corporation v. Huddleston (1993) case the following year clearly indicated, foreign governments' interpretations of treaties carried littleweight in American courts. Even sections on treaty interpretation in the 1980 Vienna Convention were overlooked. In stark contrast to foreign courts as noted by Stevens' dissent, the Court treated a case with international implications solely as a domestic case with domestic precedents and domestic answers.
Treaty cases heard by the Court in the late 1980s and early 1990s demonstrated the exceptional degree the Court yielded to the wishes of the executive branch. The Court, recognizing the constitutional role of the president in establishing treaties, in effect implicitly applied the "political question doctrine." In other words, international treaty disputes were considered matters for the president and Congress to decide and should not be the subject of courtrulings.
Given the Court's position, international kidnapping proved to be an attractive tool for U.S. law officials seeking to avoid lengthy extradition procedures in obtaining suspects or when dealing with uncooperative governments. At times the abductions were quietly sanctioned by sympathetic governments where extradition was not popular with its citizens. Such abductions were particularly useful in fighting international drug crime.
The Machain case raised questions of how the United States should regulate its police activities in other countries, the president's role in foreign relations, and treatment of foreign defendants in U.S. courts. Legislativesolutions were immediately but unsuccessfully sought after the Machaindecision. Legislators introduced a bill in Congress in 1992 forbidding prosecution of persons abducted by U.S. officials in violation of treaty terms ordespite government protests.
Related Cases
- United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (1886).
- Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886).
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952).
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992).
- Itel Containers International Corporation v. Huddleston, 113 S. Ct. 1095 (1993).
User Comments Add a comment…