Home Extradition Issues Surrounding American Federalism and Extradition

Issues Surrounding American Federalism and Extradition

Issues Surrounding American Federalism and Extradition

Issues Surrounding American Federalism and Extradition

American federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between federal and state governments, giving both entities independent powers and jurisdictions. Extradition deals with the act of surrendering an individual who has been accused of committing a crime to a foreign government for criminal prosecution. However, there are a few issues that arise when it comes to the relationship between American federalism and extradition.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the issues surrounding American federalism and extradition, involving the roles of both the federal and state governments in providing extradition, legal principles governing extradition, the impact of extradition on state sovereignty, and recent updates on federalism and extradition.

Roles of Federal and State Governments in Extradition

The federal government and state governments both play a role in ensuring effective extradition processes in the United States. The constitution allocated the power to deal with foreign affairs to the federal government while reserving all other residual powers to the state governments. Hence, the application of extradition law falls under the federal government’s jurisdiction. However, the state government plays a critical role in initiating the extradition process.

When a person flees from one state to another, the extradition process is governed by what is known as the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA). The act states that if a person commits a crime in one state and escapes to another state, the state where they fled to must extradite them back to the original state upon request.

Legal Principles Governing Extradition

There are legal principles that govern extradition in American federalism. These principles are based on the United States Constitution, international law, and domestic extradition statutes and agreements.

The United States Constitution’s Extradition Clause, located in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, provides that a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Another principle that guides extradition is the principle of specialty. This principle prohibits the requesting country from prosecuting the returned individual for an offense other than the one for which they were surrendered. If the requesting country wishes to prosecute the individual for a different offense, they must seek permission from the surrendering country, and the individual must have committed the second offense before their return.

The principle of dual criminality is also another guiding principle of extradition. It requires that a person can only be extradited if the offense they have committed is a crime in both the requesting and the surrendering country.

Other principles include the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning an individual to face persecution, the principle of proportionality, which requires that the gravity of the crime be proportionate to the punishment, and the principle of human rights, which prohibits the return of individuals to a country where they may face torture or other inhumane treatment.

Impact of Extradition on State Sovereignty

One of the significant issues surrounding extradition and American federalism is the impact of extradition on state sovereignty. States have a role in the extradition process, as they are the ones who must initiate the process. However, the federal government retains the power to extradite an individual if the state fails to initiate the process. This power has been a significant point of conflict between the federal and state governments.

The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, located in Article VI, Clause 2, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. This means that federal laws and treaties take precedence over state laws, including extradition laws.

The debate over the impact of extradition on state sovereignty has sparked many discussions over the years. Some argue that extradition is an essential tool in criminal justice, and it is necessary to maintain law and order. However, others argue that states should retain their autonomy in deciding whether to extradite an individual. The conflict between the two sides is still ongoing.

Recent Updates on Federalism and Extradition

In recent years, several high-profile cases involving extradition have highlighted issues surrounding American federalism and extradition. One such case is that of Julian Assange. Assange, an Australian citizen, was arrested in London in April 2019 after being expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy, where he had been living for seven years. Ecuador revoked his asylum status, and the British police arrested him for breaching bail conditions when he sought refuge in the embassy.

Assange was indicted by the United States for conspiring to hack a government computer and violating the Espionage Act. The United States then requested his extradition, which is still pending. The case has raised questions about sovereignty, free speech, and transparency.

Another notable case is that of Carlos Ghosn, the former CEO of Nissan Motor Company. Ghosn was arrested in Japan in November 2018 on charges of financial misconduct, including underreporting his income and misusing company funds. Ghosn fled Japan to Lebanon in December 2019, where he is currently residing.

The Japanese government requested Ghosn’s extradition from Lebanon, but Lebanon has yet to respond to the request. The case has raised questions about the validity of dual criminality and the extradition of individuals who are facing politically motivated charges.

Conclusion

In conclusion, American federalism and extradition raise a host of issues that have yet to be resolved. The role of federal and state governments in extradition, legal principles governing extradition, the impact of extradition on state sovereignty, and recent updates on federalism and extradition are all topics of concern.

Despite the challenges, extradition remains a critical tool in maintaining law and order, both domestically and internationally. The ongoing debate over the relationship between American federalism and extradition is likely to continue for years to come, as practitioners and policymakers strive to create a balance between state autonomy and federal supremacy.


In America’s early days as an independent nation, the word “federalism” was a term of ill repute for many. At the time, the country had just won its autonomy from Britain in a bloody series of battles. With FederalistsConstitution, and those duties not conferred by the Constitution are awarded to the states, which make and enforce their own specific statutes.

It is when other countries and extradition proceedings get involved, meanwhile, that the rights of individual states to enforce their laws suffers under federalism. In international extradition law, only country-to-country dialogs are permitted when it comes to striking up a treaty; with this in mind, the state of New Jersey may not enter into a pact with the nation of Nicaragua.

With an issue such as capital punishment, though, different countries have different policies regarding its acceptability. Some nations forbid use of the death penalty altogether, and will delay extradition proceedings until absolute assurance is granted that the death penalty will not be exacted. The United States, in domestic matters of capital punishment, defers to the states.

Some states seek the death penalty in criminal cases, others will not, and some states insist on capital punishment whenever possible. Yet all states insist that the federal government speak for them in matters of extradition. Since some countries will not consent to extradition unless the death penalty is waived, although the federal government might not normally limit the states in the exercise of their powers, it may be forced to in cases involving extradition.