*1 BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR RICO PUERTO IOWA, OF et al. 1987 Decided June Argued March
No. 85-2116. *2 J., Marshall, opinion Court, delivered the of the in which Rehnquist, J., and Brennan, White, Blackmun, JJ., C. Stevens, joined, and in I, II-A, II-C, O’Connor, JJ., Parts and III which Powell joined, J., in Scalia, joined part. O’Connor, J., and which in opinion filed an part concurring concurring in judgment, in the in J., which Powell, joined, p. J., post, Scalia, opinion part an concurring filed in concurring judgment, in the post, p. 231. Lino Saldana J. the cause for argued With petitioner. Cruz, were Hector Rivera him on the brief Secretary Jus- Carrion, tice of Ortiz Rico, Puerto Solicitor General, Rafael and Susan Estrich and Kathleen M. Sullivan.
Brent R. Appel argued the cause for With respondents. Miller, Thomas him J. on the brief were Attorney General of Iowa, Roxann Ryan Dahl, and Pamela Greenman Assistant Attorneys General, and William L. Kutmus. delivered the opinion Court.
Justice Marshall This case requires that we reconsider the of Ken- holding tucky Dennison, How. 66 that federal courts to fulfill the of State no order Governor
have obligation of the Con- under the Extradition Clause State’s justice. up fugitives § to IV, 2, Art. deliver stitution, I respondent January then a ci- Calder, Ronald 25, 1981, On employed Aviation the Federal air traffic controller vilian people two Juan, Rico, Puerto struck San Administration Antonio de Jesus victims, One of the with his automobile. Army injured; was killed. wife, Villalba, his Gonzalez, was eight pregnant; not her unborn child did months Villalba was parking App. occurred lot 3a. The incident survive. Aguadilla, grocery Rico, what was Puerto after of a store *3 apparently and De Jesus Gon- an altercation between Calder by police, According statements taken to two sworn zalez. a and one from witness to from De Jesus Gonzalez one striking couple his car two Calder backed incident, after prostrate body App. to of Villalba. or three times over the A34-A41. Pet for Cert. statements, arrested, of these Calder was basis
On municipal judge, arraigned charged a homicide, before with February 4, 1981, Calder $5,000 bail. On released on arraigned District Court of Commonwealth before a was first-degree charged murder and at- Rico, of Puerto appear preliminary tempted at to a murder. Calder failed hearing'on $50,000. was increased to March and bail by appear Despite representations that Calder would counsel hearing April preliminary he not do so. 13, 1981, on did at a justice, fugitive from was declared At that time Calder police, Puerto Rican $300,000. to The was increased bail having left Puerto Rico and believe that Calder had reason to family’s authori- Iowa, notified local his home returned to fugitive in Puerto Rico was a wanted in Iowa that Calder ties April charges. surrendered 24, 1981, Calder on murder On County, posted to local authorities in Polk Iowa, the $20,000 by Magistrate, bond set an Iowa and was Id., released. at A18-A19. May 15, 1981,
On the Governor of Puerto Rico submitted request to the Governor of Iowa a for Calder’s extradition. requesting papers fugi- included the arrest warrant, the charging tive resolution, the documents, and three sworn including statements of witnesses, one in which the affiant photograph depicting identified of Calder as the driver of requested the car. Counsel for Calder that the Governor of hearing, Iowa hold an extradition which was conducted the Governor’s counsel on June 17, 1981. at Id., A19. This hearing only partially was transcribed, but the record does permitted testify show that one of Calder’s counsel was his belief that “a white American man . . . could not receive a App. fair trial in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,” 32a, understanding while Calder himself testified to his that “on numerous occasions” witnesses Puerto Rican courts had “bought.” been Id., at 47a. hearing
After the extradition in Iowa, discussions between among Calder’s counsel, the Governors of Iowa and prosecutorial Rico, Puerto and authorities Puerto Rico apparently were negotiating held, with a view to a reduction charges lodged against Calder. These discussions *4 unavailing, were and on 28, December 1981, Iowa’s Gover- Ray, formally nor, Robert notified the Governor of Puerto “change Rico that in the absence of a to a more realistic charge,” request App. the for extradition was denied. to subsequent Pet. for request Cert. A44. A extradition made Ray’s respondent to Terry Governor successor in office, Branstad, was also denied. Id., at A21. February petitioner
On 15, Commonwealth of Puerto complaint Rico filed a in the United States District Court for against respondents the Southern District of Iowa Governor
223
declaration that
a
Iowa,1 seeking
of
Branstad and
State
extradi-
of proper
upon presentation
failure to deliver Calder
and the Extradi-
Extradition Clause
violated the
tion papers
(Act).2
further
§3182
The complaint
18 U. S. C.
Act,
tion
re-
directing
a writ of mandamus
the issuance of
requested
of ex-
duty”
the “ministerial
Branstad to perform
spondent
before the
Respondents
stipulated
7a-8a.
App.
tradition.
with
fully complied
papers
that the extradition
District Court
A20.
Pet. for Cert.
the Act.
to
App.
of
requirements
with
the complaint, agreeing
dismissed
The District Court
v. Denni
holding Kentucky
this Court’s
respondents
to in
any attempt
24
barred
(1861), absolutely
How. 66
son,
with
compliance
authority
compel
federal judicial
voke
(SD Iowa,
May
No. 84-126-E
or the Act. Civil
Clause
of Appeals
A10.
Court
to Pet. for Cert.
1985), App.
1986).
(CA8
2d 423,
affirmed.
787 F.
“[r]eluctantly”
Court,
complaint in this
sought
file a bill of
previously
had
Petitioner
file the bill was denied.
jurisdiction. Motion for leave to
original
our
under
Iowa,
The statute 1793, 1 also 18 U. S. C. Act of Stat. 302. See ment the Extradition (1940 ed.); § § Rev. Stat. 5278. *5 granted We certiorari, U. S. 811 to consider propositions concerning whether the the limitation of federal judicial power Kentucky in stated v. Dennison in 1861retain validity today. their We reverse.
II
Kentucky v.
brought
Dennison
an action
under this
was
A
original jurisdiction
compel by
Court’s
writ of
mandamus
fugitive
grand jury
the extradition of a
fejon. The
of Wood-
County, Kentucky,
ford
returned an
in
indictment October
charging
Lago,
Willis
a “free man
color,”
with the
assisting
escape’
crime of
of a slave.
of the South had withdrawn from the Jus- Campbell reputedly engaged tice was in mediation efforts be- seceding tween the States and the Lincoln administration, resignation departure but his from the Court and from Wash- ington resigned April were imminent; he on 30, 1861. See 5 History Supreme Swisher, C. of the Court of the United Taney States: The Period 688-689 It was these practical power circumstances, with the of the Federal Gov- adoption ernment at its lowest ebb since the of the Constitu- Taney opinion tion, that Chief Justice delivered the Court. firmly rejected position by
The Court the taken Dennison and the Governors of other free States that the Extradition required only delivery fugitives charged Clause by asylum acts which would be criminal the law of the State. vague “Under such a and indefinite construction,” the Court peace said, “the article would not be a bond of union, and but controversy irritating a constant source of discussion.” Interpreting language How., at 102. for the first time the Clause, the Court looked to the fundamental role of the right request binding to extradition the individual States into a nation:
“Looking, therefore, to the words of the Constitu- policy necessity provi- tion—to the obvious of this preserve harmony sion to between States, and order and respective law within their borders . . . —the conclusion compact engrafted is irresistible, that this in the Con- every stitution included, and was intended include, to of- punishable by fence made the law of the State which it gives right was committed, and that it to the Execu- authority fugitive tive of the State to demand the authority the Executive of the State in which he is found; right given implies that the to ‘demand’ that it is an abso- right; lute it and followsthat there must be a correlative
obligation
to deliver, without
reference to the char-
charged,
policy
acter of the crime
or to the
or laws of the
fugitive
State to which the
has fled.”
at 103.
Id.,
Act
Extradition
The Court then turned
procedures
regulation of extradi-
In the
for the
Stat. 302.
the same abso-
Act,
that
the Court found
tion established
obligation
right
demand and correlative
to deliver.
lute
asylum
the Act,
under
As to the
State
Governor of
perform
duty
“[t]he
is
which he is to
Court determined
party
merely
ar-
is,
.
ministerial —that
to cause the
to be
. .
authority
agent or
rested,
delivered to the
the State
*7
24
at
But
How.,
was
where the crime
committed.”
duty’
that
words ‘it shall be the
the Court concluded
“the
mandatory
compulsory,
not
as
but as declara-
were
tory
used
and
duty”
Id.,
of
created
the Constitution.
the moral
necessary, in
was
at 107.
a construction
the Court’s
Such
infirmity.
view, to avoid constitutional
any
compel
provide
not
the exe-
“The act does
means
duty,
any punishment
neglect
cution of this
nor
for
inflict
part
the State;
or
of
Executive of
nor
refusal on
provision
clause
in the
which
is there
or
Constitution
of the United States with this
arms the Government
place every
power.
power
a
Indeed, such
would
State
under the control and
of the General Govern-
dominion
in the
its internal concerns
ment, even
administration
rights.
clear,
we
it
and reserved
And
think
that
no
Government,
Constitution,
Federal
under the
has
any duty
impose
such,
a
as
officer,
on State
perform
compel
and
him to
it.” Ibid.
whatever,
B
years, Kentucky
125
v. Dennison has stood
Thus, for over
propositions:
two
that the Extradition Clause cre-
first,
for
duty
up
upon
mandatory
fugitives
proper de-
ates a
to deliver
authority
second,
the federal
have no
mand; and
that
courts
compelperformance of this ministe-
under the Constitution to
delivery.
duty
conclusions,
first
rial
As to
of these
passage
The lan-
has revealed no occasionfor doubt.
of time
Michigan
explicit.”
guage
v.
Clause is “clear
(1978).
mandatory language
Doran, 439
U. S.
Its
purposes:
bring
furthers its intended
“to enable each state to
swiftly
possible
offenders to trial as
as
in the state where the
alleged
preclude any
offense
committed,”
was
and “to
state
becoming sanctuary
fugitives
justice
from
for
of an-
Biddinger
other state.”
at
Id.,
287; see
v. Commissioner of
(1917);Appleyard
Police,
The second, and of v. Denni- upon son rests a foundation with which time and the currents change favorably. of constitutional have dealt much less If it facing looming seemed clear to in the Court 1861, the shadow of a Civil War, that “the Federal Government, under the impose Constitution, has no to on a State officer, any duty compel perform such, as whatever, and him to it,” principles 24 point How., 107, at basic constitutional now clearly way. years as the other Within 15 of the decision plain in Dennison duty, it was said that “when a official requiring performed, no exercise of is discretion, to be performance any person personal refused, is who will sustain injury by may compel such refusal have a mandamus to its performance,” objection and it was no that such an order might sought against be in the federal courts a state officer. Liquidation (1876). Board v. McComb, 92 531, U. S. 541 of 228 long principle may been
It has
a settled
that federal courts
enjoin
by
unconstitutional action
state
See Ex
officials.
(1908).
parte Young,
209 U. S.
155-156
It
be su-
would
perfluous to restate all the occasions on which this
has
Court
upon
imposed
duty
obey
requirements
a
state officials
the
compelled
performance
of the
of
Constitution, or
the
such
may
refer
duties; it
suffice to
to Brown v. Board
Edu-
Cooper
cation,
Respondents contend, an however, “executive com- *9 developed through mon law” has extradition the efforts employ Governors discretion accorded them under provides superior and that Dennison, this “common law” duty” provided alternative to the “ministerial to extradite Arg. for Tr. Constitution. of Oral assum- Even ing law,” this tradition of “executive common the existence of Long weight can accorded it. continuation of no be io practice incompatible or administrative decisional law requirements our of the Constitution cannot overcome g., requirements. responsibility e. See, to enforce thos'e (1954); v. Education, Brown v. Board 347 U. S. Green County Kent 391 U. Board, New School S. argu Though respondents’ terms, not articulated theise request we reconsider our construc ment is essence a thkt establish as a matter of con tion of the Extradition Clause to interpretation a has hitherto been stitutional discretion which solely explicit exercised because the Constitution’s command gone previously This, has unenforced. for the reasons decline to do. stated, we
C holding Respondents contend that even if the further contemporary Kentucky Dennison cannot Withstand scru v. tiny, petitioner prbfit would not from its demise because right no to demand rendi State, Puerto Rico is not a has fugitives It is true tion of under the Extradition Clause. only apply and we “States,” that the words of the Clause of Puerto Rico is en have never held that the Commonwealth confer]'ed upon the States under the titled to all the benefits today applicability need not decide what Constitution. We may to the Commonwealth of the Extradition Clause have clearly ap for the Extradition Act Rico, however, Puerto fugitives request plies. requires Act rendition of at the The demanding “Territory,” as It was decided of a as 'well State. long ago Territory Rico, that Puerto ais a United jus fugitives its States, could invoke the Act to'reclaim Bingham, Kopel ex rel. S. 468 tice, see New York U. challenge respondents do nob the correctness of change holding. subsequent to Commonwealth sta §§ through legislation, tus see 64 48 U. S. C. Stat. 731b-731d, did not remove from the Government of the Common pos power to demand extradition which it had wealth Territory, legislation sessed as a for the intention of that *10 230 degree autonomy and to Puerto Rico
was “to accord normally independence associated with States of the Union.” Surveyors Examining Engineers, Architects Board 594 Since the Act Otero, de 426 U. S. Flores applies may invoke the Rico, the Commonwealth to Puerto against rights to enforce state officers of federal courts including equitable relief to com- statutes, created federal statutory pel performance Maine v. of federal duties. See (1980). Accordingly, Rico Puerto Thiboutot, U. S. may predicate Act, its mandamus action on the without re- gard applicability of the Extradition Clause.5 to the direct
Ill Kentucky product of another time. v. Dennison is the conception and the of the relation between States fundamentally is in- there announced Federal Government compatible century more than a of constitutional de- velopment. decision has stood while the world of Yet this passed away. part conclude that it it has We which was longer. Appeals may is no The decision of Court stand
Reversed. Justice Powell O’Connor, joins, with whom Justice concurring judgment. concurring part opinion. join III II-A, II-C, I of the Court’s I, Parts ultimately this case under the the Court resolves Because to force the states to honor Respondents contend: “Puerto Rico seeks representatives though Congressional requests even its rendition opportunity the admission of Puerto not had an to consider states have argument. . . serves to into the Union.... Puerto Rico’s Rico as a state process.” Brief for significance of the statehood admissions eviscerate the legisla Congress enacted the Respondents Leaving aside the fact Commonwealth, Territory Rico first a and then tion which made Puerto required is not to extradite logic suggest would that Iowa this curious Massachusetts, presence in States, whose New York and felons to such as Congress. cast in is not attributable to votes Union I § 3182, II-B, do not find Part 18 U. S. C. Act, Extradition concerning the Extradition Clause of statements and its *11 necessary this case. Accord to the decision of Constitution, part opinion. ingly, to that Court’s I do not subscribe (1985); g., Kolender 472 U. S. Nelson, e. Jean v. See, (1983);Ashwander n. 10 v. 352, 361, 461 U. S. Lawson, v. (1936)(Brandeis, concurring). J., TVA, U. S. Scalia, concurring concurring part Justice judgment. portions of the Court’s result,
I concur in the § overruling Kentucky applying opinion 3182 and 18 U. S. C. interpreted Dennison, 24 insofar as it How. party predecessor I that statute. note that no before us Congress require lack of extradi- has asserted the Territory. tion from a State to a