This Article is the first comprehensive account of the constitutional foundations of U.S. extradition practice and its relationship to international law. Through detailed analysis of early American extradition controversies—including the Longchamps Affair and the Robbins case—the Article shows how political actors and courts constructed the modern constitutional law of extradition, resolving key issues concerning presidential power, the role of the states, and the scope of congressional authority. This regime, the Article argues, emerged not from appeals to the constitutional text or original understandings, but rather from structural intuitions, consequentialist considerations, and, as time went on, historical traditions. As the Article further documents, the constitutional law of extradition had a relational interaction with international law, in that the views of U.S. interpreters concerning the nation’s international law duties were relevant to their views of constitutional authority, and vice versa. The Article also complicates the dominant narrative of a unilateral “imperial presidency” in foreign affairs by showing that, because of the liberty interests involved, extradition authority evolved and remained as a shared power, requiring a treaty-based or statutory foundation as well as judicial involvement. In this respect, extradition parallels the development of certain other unenumerated foreign affairs powers, including most notably the authority over immigration. Finally, the Article situates extradition within the broader field of foreign relations law, illuminating its ties to doctrinal developments such as treaty non- self-execution, foreign affairs federalism, and sovereignty-based legislative power— developments that still resonate today.

1083
This Article is the first comprehensive account of the constitutional foundations of U.S. extradition practice and its relationship to international law. Through detailed analysis of early American extradition controversies—including the Longchamps Affair and the Robbins case—the Article shows how political actors and courts constructed the modern constitutional law of extradition, resolving key issues concerning presidential power, the role of the states, and the scope of congressional authority. This regime, the Article argues, emerged not from appeals to the constitutional text or original understandings, but rather from structural intuitions, consequentialist considerations, and, as time went on, historical traditions. As the Article further documents, the constitutional law of extradition had a relational interaction with international law, in that the views of U.S. interpreters concerning the nation’s international law duties were relevant to their views of constitutional authority, and vice versa. The Article also complicates the dominant narrative of a unilateral “imperial presidency” in foreign affairs by showing that, because of the liberty interests involved, extradition authority evolved and remained as a shared power, requiring a treaty-based or statutory foundation as well as judicial involvement. In this respect, extradition parallels the development of certain other unenumerated foreign affairs powers, including most notably the authority over immigration. Finally, the Article situates extradition within the broader field of foreign relations law, illuminating its ties to doctrinal developments such as treaty non- self-execution, foreign affairs federalism, and sovereignty-based legislative power— developments that still resonate today.
Bradley, Curtis A.
(2026)
"Extradition in the Early Republic: International Law and Constitutional Authority,"
University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 93:
Iss.
5, Article 1.
Available at:
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol93/iss5/1
DOWNLOADS
Since
COinS
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Administrative Acquiescence: An Analysis of Nonadverse Litigation Involving Administrative Agencies | 0 | 4.9 | 01-09-2026 |
| 2 | Angriff auf internationale Justiz: Trump ruft Staaten zum Austritt aus dem Strafgerichtshof auf | 0 | 8.23 | 23-09-2026 |
| 3 | Establishing a Right to Civil Transcription | 0 | 6.54 | 01-09-2026 |
| 4 | Robtel Pailey Says U.S. Deportee Deal Is Unconstitutional | 0 | 8.28 | 25-09-2026 |
| 5 | Very Civilized Orangutans | 0 | 8.99 | 17-08-2026 |
| 6 | Native Marburys: Judicial Review in Tribal Courts | 0 | 4.88 | 01-09-2026 |
| 7 | The Supreme Court’s (Self-defeating) Supremacy | 0 | 30 | 11-09-2026 |
| 8 | United States: Court Reinforces Duty to Respond to Congressional Subpoenas | 0 | 8.1 | 21-08-2026 |
| 9 | Strafvollzug im Ausland am Beispiel von Schweden und Estland: Wenn im Gefängnis kein Platz ist | 0 | 17.59 | 21-09-2026 |
| 10 | United States: New Path to Resolve Conservation Easement Disputes | 0 | 10 | 24-06-2026 |