Puerto Rico v. Branstad

According to the Court opinion, written by Justice Marshall, it did not. Kentucky v. Dennison, wrote Marshall, was "the product of another time," a time 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. We conclude that it may stand no longer." There was simply no reason to exclude extradition 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 of Kentucky 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 well as 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.