United States v. Alvarez-Machain

The ruling established that foreign citizens who commit crimes against U.S. citizens outside U.S. boundaries still come under jurisdiction of U.S. courts even when forcibly abducted from their country over official protests of that nation. Abducted defendants can still receive fair trials under the Due Process Clause. Government-sponsored abductions of another country's citizens in absence 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 rather than 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 and maintain 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 had a 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 answering to the charges brought before the court. Furthermore, Peru had not protested the abduction. Also in 1886, the Court ruled in United States v. Rauscher that a person extradited under a treaty could only be prosecuted for the crimes for which he was extradited. U.S. jurisdiction did not exist if terms of 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 the Fifth Amendment. However, the Court again held that "the power of a court to try 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 been investigating. Unsuccessfully, DEA officials had informally negotiated with the Mexican government regarding transport of one of those charged, a medical doctor 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 murder of 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 official report 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 the extradition of individuals involved in Machain's abduction for prosecution on kidnapping 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 the United States and Mexico." The court agreed with Machain by concluding that DEA agents had orchestrated the abduction therefore violating the treaty. The court, 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 the forcible abduction. The United States then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.