United States v. Alvarez-Machain
119 L. Ed. 2d 441, 504 U.S. 655, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3679 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The forcible abduction of a defendant from a foreign country with which the United States has an extradition treaty does not violate the terms of that treaty or divest U.S. courts of jurisdiction, unless the treaty explicitly prohibits such actions.
Facts:
- Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a citizen and resident of Mexico, was indicted in the United States for his alleged participation in the kidnap and murder of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent in Mexico.
- Alvarez-Machain, a medical doctor, was accused of prolonging the agent's life so that others could continue to torture and interrogate him.
- After informal negotiations with Mexican officials to secure Alvarez-Machain's presence failed, DEA officials arranged for his abduction.
- On April 2, 1990, Alvarez-Machain was forcibly kidnaped from his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico by individuals acting at the behest of the DEA.
- He was then flown on a private plane to El Paso, Texas, where he was arrested by DEA officials.
- The Mexican government officially protested the abduction to the United States through diplomatic notes.
Procedural Posture:
- Humberto Alvarez-Machain was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- Alvarez-Machain filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because his abduction violated the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty.
- The District Court granted the motion, dismissed the indictment, and ordered Alvarez-Machain repatriated to Mexico.
- The United States, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the abduction violated the treaty.
- The United States, as the petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from 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 forcible abduction of a criminal defendant from a foreign nation with which the United States has an extradition treaty violate the terms of that treaty, thereby divesting U.S. courts of jurisdiction over the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The forcible abduction of a criminal defendant from a foreign nation does not violate the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty because the treaty does not expressly prohibit such actions, and therefore does not deprive U.S. courts of jurisdiction. The Court's long-standing precedent, established in Ker v. Illinois, holds that the power of a court to try a person for a crime is not impaired by the fact that he was brought within the court's jurisdiction by forcible abduction. While United States v. Rauscher established an exception for cases where an extradition treaty is formally invoked (the doctrine of specialty), that exception does not apply here because the treaty's procedures were never used. The U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty does not contain any explicit language prohibiting abductions, and its history does not support implying such a term. The treaty establishes a legal mechanism for extradition, but it does not state that this is the sole means of gaining custody of a fugitive. Therefore, the rule from Ker applies, and any violation of general international law or national sovereignty is a diplomatic matter for the Executive Branch, not a basis for a court to dismiss an indictment.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. A state-sponsored abduction violates the implicit terms and overall purpose of the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty, which is intended to be the exclusive means for obtaining custody of individuals for prosecution. The majority fails to distinguish between a private kidnapping, as in Ker, and an official abduction authorized by the U.S. government, which is a flagrant violation of international law and the territorial integrity of a treaty partner. The comprehensive nature of the extradition treaty, with its detailed procedures and protections, implies a mutual undertaking to respect its terms as the sole method of transfer. To allow one party to resort to self-help through kidnapping renders the treaty's provisions meaningless. The reasoning of United States v. Rauscher, which implied the doctrine of specialty from a treaty's structure and purpose, should apply here to imply a prohibition on official abductions. The government's conduct was a shocking violation of international norms and the rule of law that this Court should not condone.
Analysis:
This decision firmly entrenches the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, extending it to cases of government-sponsored international abduction from a nation that is a U.S. extradition treaty partner. The Court's textualist approach prioritizes the explicit language of the treaty over its perceived purpose or the norms of customary international law. The ruling clarifies that a violation of another nation's sovereignty is not, by itself, a defense against jurisdiction in a U.S. court. Consequently, the decision channels the remedy for such actions away from the judicial system and into the realm of diplomacy and international relations, leaving the Executive Branch to deal with the political fallout of its own actions.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Alvarez-Machain