Charlton v. Kelly
33 S. Ct. 945, 229 U.S. 447, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2459 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A treaty does not cease to be binding when breached by one party; it is merely voidable, and the decision to abrogate it is a political question for the executive branch, not the judiciary. If the executive branch elects to waive the breach and continue honoring the treaty, the courts must enforce it as the supreme law of the land.
Facts:
- Porter Charlton, a citizen of the United States, was accused of murdering his wife in Moltrasio, Italy.
- Following the murder, Charlton fled Italy and returned to the United States.
- The Italian government requested Charlton's extradition from the United States to stand trial for the murder, invoking the extradition treaty between the two nations.
- The treaty called for the mutual surrender of 'persons' accused of specified crimes.
- For years prior, Italy had maintained a policy, codified in its penal code, of refusing to extradite its own citizens.
- In previous instances, Italy had refused to surrender Italian subjects to the United States, despite U.S. protests that this violated the treaty.
- While requesting Charlton's extradition, the Italian government formally communicated that it would not reciprocate by surrendering its own nationals in similar future cases.
- Despite Italy's declared non-reciprocity, the United States Secretary of State chose to honor the treaty and authorize Charlton's surrender.
Procedural Posture:
- The Italian government initiated extradition proceedings against Porter Charlton in the United States.
- A hearing was held before Judge John A. Blair, acting as an extradition magistrate, who certified that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge.
- Charlton was committed to jail to await surrender to Italian authorities.
- The U.S. Secretary of State issued a warrant of surrender for Charlton.
- Charlton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey to challenge the legality of his detention.
- The Circuit Court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus.
- Charlton appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the refusal of Italy to extradite its own citizens to the United States under a reciprocal treaty automatically relieve the United States of its obligation to extradite an American citizen to Italy?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Lurton
No. Italy's refusal to extradite its own citizens does not automatically abrogate the treaty or release the United States from its obligations. The court reasoned that an extradition hearing is a preliminary examination, not a full trial, and therefore the exclusion of a defense like insanity is not reviewable on habeas corpus. The court held that the term 'persons' in an extradition treaty presumptively includes citizens of the asylum country unless an explicit exception is made. Most importantly, a breach of a treaty by one nation makes the treaty voidable, not automatically void. The non-breaching nation has the sovereign choice to either abrogate the treaty or waive the breach and continue to be bound by it. This decision is a political question that rests with the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary. Because the executive branch, through the Secretary of State, had decided to waive Italy's breach and continue to recognize the treaty as being in full force, the courts are bound by that determination and must enforce the treaty as the supreme law of the land.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the political question doctrine in the context of treaty enforcement, confirming that the executive branch has discretion to decide whether a treaty remains in effect despite a breach by the other party. It clarifies that treaty obligations are not necessarily contingent on strict reciprocity and that the judiciary will defer to the executive's judgment on matters of foreign relations and treaty abrogation. This holding reinforces the separation of powers by limiting the courts' role in foreign policy and ensuring that the nation speaks with a single voice, as directed by the political branches, in its international dealings.
Unlock the full brief for Charlton v. Kelly