Petitioner
Puerto Rico
Respondent
Terry Branstad, Governor of Iowa, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the Governor of Iowa was in violation of the Constitution's ExtraditionClause for failing to extradite Ronald Calder, a fugitive from justice in Puerto Rico.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Lino J. Saldana
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Brent R. Appel
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 June 1987
Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal courts must have the authority to order a governor to comply with the Constitution's Extradition Clause.
Significance
The case allowed federal courts more authority to command compliance from states, overturning the long-held precedent set by Kentucky v. Dennison (1861), a Civil War era states' rights case.
The Precedent of Kentucky v. Dennison
In Puerto Rico v. Branstad, the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution granted federal courts the authority to compel an asylum state to fulfill its obligations under the Constitution's Extradition Clause and deliverfugitives for justice on demand. In doing so, it overturned Kentucky v. Dennison, one of the long-standing foundational cases for the principle offederalism--the balance of power between state and federal governments. Kentucky v. Dennison affirmed the principle that state and federal governments were always to be considered coequal. This, the Court declared in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, was "not representative of current law."
Kentucky v. Dennison dealt with the highly politicized issue of fugitive slaves in 1861. As the nation moved towards the Civil War, northern statesrefused to hand over fugitive slaves, while southern states refused to release free blacks captured and sold in the South. Kentucky v. Dennison was representative. The case involved a free African American man from Ohio, named William Lago, who helped a slave named Charlotte escape from Kentucky. Kentucky's governor tried to force Ohio's governor to extradite Lago. When boththe Ohio governor and his successor refused on the grounds that Lago had committed no crime in Ohio, Kentucky's governor appealed in 1861 to the SupremeCourt to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Ohio's governor, then William Dennison, to extradite Lago. The Supreme Court refused, ruling that, whileconformity with the Constitution's Extradition Clause was mandatory, the federal courts had no authority to compel it.
The Case of Ronald Calder
For more than a century, Kentucky v. Dennison stood as precedent. In 1981, a federally-employed air traffic controller named Ronald Calder struck two people with his car in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A man was injured; his wifeand their unborn child were killed. Witnesses testified that the incident took place immediately after an argument between the two men, and that after having struck the two people, Calder backed his car over the woman's prone bodyseveral times.
Charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder, Calder fled to his family's home in Iowa. The Puerto Rican authorities notified Iowa that Calder was a fugitive from justice. Calder surrendered himself in Iowa and posted thebond set by that state. When the governor of Puerto Rico requested Calder's extradition, the governor of Iowa held an extradition hearing where Calder's counsel testified that the accused could not, as a white man, receive a fair trial in the Puerto Rican courts. After attempts to negotiate a reduction of charges for Calder failed, Iowa notified Puerto Rico that the request for extradition was denied.
In 1984, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed suit against the state of Iowaand its governor, Terry Branstad, in U.S. district court, seeking a writ ofmandamus forcing the governor to comply with the Extradition Clause. The district court and the court of appeals both ruled that the Supreme Court's holding in Kentucky v. Dennison prevented an attempt by federal authorities to force compliance with the clause. The Supreme Court then agreed toconsider whether the decision in Kentucky v. Dennison still stood.
A Different Era
According to the Court opinion, written by Justice Marshall, it did not. Kentucky v. Dennison, wrote Marshall, was "the product of another time," atime in which states were seceding and "the practical power of the Federal Government at its lowest ebb since the adoption of the Constitution." The reluctance of the federal courts to intervene in state extradition disputes during this time was clearly politically motivated. "Yet," wrote Marshall, "this decision has stood while the world of which it was a part has passed away. Weconclude that it may stand no longer." There was simply no reason to excludeextradition from a long list of duties which the federal courts had the authority to compel of state governments.
The Court dismissed Iowa's additional contention that even in the absence ofKentucky v. Dennison the state would not be compelled under the Constitution to extradite Calder to Puerto Rico, since the latter was not a state.Puerto Rico, as a commonwealth, wrote Marshall, was clearly a territory of the United States, and the Constitution stated that the Extradition Act "requires rendition of fugitives at the request of a demanding `Territory,' as wellas State." The Supreme Court thus reversed the decision of the court of appeals, and overturned its own holding in Kentucky v. Dennison, ensuring that no state would become a safe haven for fugitives from the law.
Related Cases
Americans Abroad
When traveling abroad, Americans are subject to the laws of the country theyare visiting, which may be quite different from those of the United States. Laws of foreign countries may be quite restrictive compared to U.S. laws, particularly in the areas of free speech and freedom of movement. Guarantees regarding legal procedure and rights of the accused may be completely absent.
When an American is arrested or detained abroad, some help is usually available from the U.S. embassy located in that country. Embassy personnel may visitthe detainee in order to ensure his or her safety and fair treatment. They may also notify relatives of the situation and help obtain local legal representation (the legal assistance of someone familiar with local law is usually necessary). Embassy personnel may also aid Americans convicted of crimes and sentenced to imprisonment in foreign countries by arranging visits of relatives, providing information about pardons, and protesting ill treatment when necessary; in some cases, treaties may allow for transfer of prisoners to U.S. prisons. Embassy personnel may not pay legal fees or fines with U.S. government funds or represent a U.S. citizen at trial.
Sources
U.S. Department of State (http:travel.state.gov.arrest.html)
Puerto Rico
Respondent
Terry Branstad, Governor of Iowa, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the Governor of Iowa was in violation of the Constitution's ExtraditionClause for failing to extradite Ronald Calder, a fugitive from justice in Puerto Rico.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Lino J. Saldana
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Brent R. Appel
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 June 1987
Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal courts must have the authority to order a governor to comply with the Constitution's Extradition Clause.
Significance
The case allowed federal courts more authority to command compliance from states, overturning the long-held precedent set by Kentucky v. Dennison (1861), a Civil War era states' rights case.
The Precedent of Kentucky v. Dennison
In Puerto Rico v. Branstad, the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution granted federal courts the authority to compel an asylum state to fulfill its obligations under the Constitution's Extradition Clause and deliverfugitives for justice on demand. In doing so, it overturned Kentucky v. Dennison, one of the long-standing foundational cases for the principle offederalism--the balance of power between state and federal governments. Kentucky v. Dennison affirmed the principle that state and federal governments were always to be considered coequal. This, the Court declared in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, was "not representative of current law."
Kentucky v. Dennison dealt with the highly politicized issue of fugitive slaves in 1861. As the nation moved towards the Civil War, northern statesrefused to hand over fugitive slaves, while southern states refused to release free blacks captured and sold in the South. Kentucky v. Dennison was representative. The case involved a free African American man from Ohio, named William Lago, who helped a slave named Charlotte escape from Kentucky. Kentucky's governor tried to force Ohio's governor to extradite Lago. When boththe Ohio governor and his successor refused on the grounds that Lago had committed no crime in Ohio, Kentucky's governor appealed in 1861 to the SupremeCourt to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Ohio's governor, then William Dennison, to extradite Lago. The Supreme Court refused, ruling that, whileconformity with the Constitution's Extradition Clause was mandatory, the federal courts had no authority to compel it.
The Case of Ronald Calder
For more than a century, Kentucky v. Dennison stood as precedent. In 1981, a federally-employed air traffic controller named Ronald Calder struck two people with his car in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A man was injured; his wifeand their unborn child were killed. Witnesses testified that the incident took place immediately after an argument between the two men, and that after having struck the two people, Calder backed his car over the woman's prone bodyseveral times.
Charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder, Calder fled to his family's home in Iowa. The Puerto Rican authorities notified Iowa that Calder was a fugitive from justice. Calder surrendered himself in Iowa and posted thebond set by that state. When the governor of Puerto Rico requested Calder's extradition, the governor of Iowa held an extradition hearing where Calder's counsel testified that the accused could not, as a white man, receive a fair trial in the Puerto Rican courts. After attempts to negotiate a reduction of charges for Calder failed, Iowa notified Puerto Rico that the request for extradition was denied.
In 1984, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed suit against the state of Iowaand its governor, Terry Branstad, in U.S. district court, seeking a writ ofmandamus forcing the governor to comply with the Extradition Clause. The district court and the court of appeals both ruled that the Supreme Court's holding in Kentucky v. Dennison prevented an attempt by federal authorities to force compliance with the clause. The Supreme Court then agreed toconsider whether the decision in Kentucky v. Dennison still stood.
A Different Era
According to the Court opinion, written by Justice Marshall, it did not. Kentucky v. Dennison, wrote Marshall, was "the product of another time," atime in which states were seceding and "the practical power of the Federal Government at its lowest ebb since the adoption of the Constitution." The reluctance of the federal courts to intervene in state extradition disputes during this time was clearly politically motivated. "Yet," wrote Marshall, "this decision has stood while the world of which it was a part has passed away. Weconclude that it may stand no longer." There was simply no reason to excludeextradition from a long list of duties which the federal courts had the authority to compel of state governments.
The Court dismissed Iowa's additional contention that even in the absence ofKentucky v. Dennison the state would not be compelled under the Constitution to extradite Calder to Puerto Rico, since the latter was not a state.Puerto Rico, as a commonwealth, wrote Marshall, was clearly a territory of the United States, and the Constitution stated that the Extradition Act "requires rendition of fugitives at the request of a demanding `Territory,' as wellas State." The Supreme Court thus reversed the decision of the court of appeals, and overturned its own holding in Kentucky v. Dennison, ensuring that no state would become a safe haven for fugitives from the law.
Related Cases
- Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. 66 (1861).
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).
Americans Abroad
When traveling abroad, Americans are subject to the laws of the country theyare visiting, which may be quite different from those of the United States. Laws of foreign countries may be quite restrictive compared to U.S. laws, particularly in the areas of free speech and freedom of movement. Guarantees regarding legal procedure and rights of the accused may be completely absent.
When an American is arrested or detained abroad, some help is usually available from the U.S. embassy located in that country. Embassy personnel may visitthe detainee in order to ensure his or her safety and fair treatment. They may also notify relatives of the situation and help obtain local legal representation (the legal assistance of someone familiar with local law is usually necessary). Embassy personnel may also aid Americans convicted of crimes and sentenced to imprisonment in foreign countries by arranging visits of relatives, providing information about pardons, and protesting ill treatment when necessary; in some cases, treaties may allow for transfer of prisoners to U.S. prisons. Embassy personnel may not pay legal fees or fines with U.S. government funds or represent a U.S. citizen at trial.
Sources
U.S. Department of State (http:travel.state.gov.arrest.html)
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
User Comments Add a comment…