Puerto Rico v. Branstad
1987 U.S. LEXIS 2873, 97 L.Ed.2d 187, 107 S. Ct. 2802 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal courts have the authority to compel state governors to fulfill their mandatory, ministerial duty under the Extradition Clause and the Extradition Act to deliver up fugitives upon proper demand from a requesting state or territory. The precedent of Kentucky v. Dennison, which held that federal courts lacked such enforcement power, is overruled.
Facts:
- In January 1981, Ronald Calder struck two people with his automobile in a parking lot in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, injuring one and killing the other, Army Villalba, who was eight months pregnant.
- Witnesses stated that Calder backed his car over Villalba's body multiple times.
- Puerto Rican authorities charged Calder with first-degree murder and attempted murder.
- After being released on bail, Calder failed to appear for court hearings, was declared a fugitive from justice, and fled to his family's home in Iowa.
- On April 24, 1981, Calder surrendered to local authorities in Iowa.
- The Governor of Puerto Rico submitted a formal extradition request to Iowa's Governor, Robert Ray.
- Following a hearing where Calder's counsel argued a white American could not receive a fair trial in Puerto Rico, Governor Ray denied the extradition request.
- Governor Ray's successor, respondent Terry Branstad, also denied a subsequent extradition request.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Governor Branstad and the State of Iowa.
- Puerto Rico sought a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus to compel Governor Branstad to extradite Ronald Calder.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the Supreme Court's decision in Kentucky v. Dennison was an absolute bar to federal courts compelling a governor to perform extradition.
- Petitioner Puerto Rico appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 a federal court have the power under the Constitution to order a state's governor to fulfill their duty under the Extradition Clause and the federal Extradition Act to deliver up a fugitive from justice upon a proper demand?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. A federal court has the power to order a state's governor to fulfill the mandatory duty of extradition. While the 1861 case of Kentucky v. Dennison correctly identified the Extradition Clause as creating a mandatory duty, it was wrong to conclude that federal courts lack the authority to enforce it. The Dennison court's reasoning was based on a view of co-equal state and federal sovereignty that is fundamentally incompatible with over a century of constitutional development, in which federal courts have consistently been recognized as having the power to compel state officials to comply with federal law and the Constitution. The duty to extradite is ministerial, not discretionary, and federal judicial enforcement of this constitutional command does not violate principles of federalism or the Tenth Amendment.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, but the Court should not have reached the constitutional question. The case could have been resolved entirely on statutory grounds. The federal Extradition Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3182, clearly applies to territories like Puerto Rico and imposes a duty on states to honor their extradition requests. Because the statute provides a sufficient basis for the judgment, the majority's re-evaluation of the Extradition Clause in Part II-B was unnecessary, following the principle of constitutional avoidance.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. I agree with the result and with overruling Kentucky v. Dennison's interpretation of the federal extradition statute. The decision can be grounded in the application of 18 U.S.C. § 3182, and it is notable that no party challenged Congress's power to require extradition from a state to a territory under this statute.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally altered the practice of extradition in the United States by overruling a 125-year-old precedent from the Civil War era. By rejecting the Dennison court's view of states' rights, the Court empowered federal courts to enforce what had previously been only a 'moral duty' of governors. This ruling ensures that a governor's refusal to extradite is no longer a final, unreviewable political decision, but a legal question subject to federal judicial review and compulsion. It strengthens national unity by preventing states from becoming sanctuaries for fugitives and guarantees that the extradition process operates as a mandatory, legally enforceable command as the Framers intended.
