quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Unbelievable. I hope DeSantis sticks to his guns. It will bury him.

I would like to hear Lane weigh in on this issue. Of course Jtex and Ann of Ravensbruk will be all over it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Can he refuse to extradite?

Maybe he can, and it just adds to the court docket to get it done.

I don’t really see what DeSantis’ statement really does other than play for votes.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Can he refuse to extradite?

Maybe he can, and it just adds to the court docket to get it done.

I don’t really see what DeSantis’ statement really does other than play for votes.

Practically, speaking a Governor can refuse. However, he does do at his own peril.

In the 1800s there was no mechanism to force a Governor to surrender a citizen. Here are the two main cases.

The Extradition Clause has now been incorporated and the Fed Courts are empowered to force the Governor subject to contempt and arrest to surrender the citizen.

First, in Kentucky v. Dennison (1860), a man committed a crime in Kentucky by helping a slave escape. He then fled to Ohio. The Court did hold that, under the Extradition Clause, the governor of Ohio had the constitutional responsibility to return the man to Kentucky. However, practically, the Court refused to enforce the clause. Instead, it held that federal courts could not issue so-called “writs of mandamus” – essentially court orders – to force the governor to comply with the clause. Essentially, this greatly mitigated the power of the clause. However, in Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987), the Court reversed its position. There, an Iowa man had struck pedestrians in Puerto Rico. The man then fled back to his home state; and the governor of Puerto Rico requested that Iowa return the fugitive, asking an Iowa federal court to enforce the Extradition Clause. The governor refused, and his decision was backed by the district court in Iowa, as well as the Circuit Court of Appeals. They cited the precedent set in Kentucky. The Supreme Court reversed, however, holding the decision in Kentucky to be outdated and no longer applicable. Iowa had to return the man to Puerto Rico. In the wake of Branstad, courts now do have the power to enforce the Extradition Clause.

Now, I guess, the Fed Courts could refuse to enforce. A District Court maybe. An Appeals Court will nail extradition to The Governor of Florida’s forehead.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So, barring another change of precedent, all DeSantis’ action did was force NYS to go to federal court to get an order for Trump’s extradition if DeSantis does not willingly comply?

Heck, that’s not all bad in that it will make Trump spend even more money on lawyers…

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Can he refuse to extradite?

Maybe he can, and it just adds to the court docket to get it done.

I don’t really see what DeSantis’ statement really does other than play for votes.

Practically, speaking a Governor can refuse. However, he does do at his own peril.

In the 1800s there was no mechanism to force a Governor to surrender a citizen. Here are the two main cases.

The Extradition Clause has now been incorporated and the Fed Courts are empowered to force the Governor subject to contempt and arrest to surrender the citizen.

First, in Kentucky v. Dennison (1860), a man committed a crime in Kentucky by helping a slave escape. He then fled to Ohio. The Court did hold that, under the Extradition Clause, the governor of Ohio had the constitutional responsibility to return the man to Kentucky. However, practically, the Court refused to enforce the clause. Instead, it held that federal courts could not issue so-called “writs of mandamus” – essentially court orders – to force the governor to comply with the clause. Essentially, this greatly mitigated the power of the clause. However, in Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987), the Court reversed its position. There, an Iowa man had struck pedestrians in Puerto Rico. The man then fled back to his home state; and the governor of Puerto Rico requested that Iowa return the fugitive, asking an Iowa federal court to enforce the Extradition Clause. The governor refused, and his decision was backed by the district court in Iowa, as well as the Circuit Court of Appeals. They cited the precedent set in Kentucky. The Supreme Court reversed, however, holding the decision in Kentucky to be outdated and no longer applicable. Iowa had to return the man to Puerto Rico. In the wake of Branstad, courts now do have the power to enforce the Extradition Clause.

Now, I guess, the Fed Courts could refuse to enforce. A District Court maybe. An Appeals Court will nail extradition to The Governor of Florida’s forehead.