Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

South Dakota v. Brown

Supreme Court of California · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawExtraditionMandamusGovernor's powersextraditionExtradition ClauseUniform Criminal Extradition ActCalifornia Extradition Act

Facts

In February 1976, South Dakota presented an extradition demand to the Governor of California seeking the extradition of Dennis James Banks. The demand alleged that Banks had been convicted of specified felonies in South Dakota and had fled to California while on bail. The Governor did not question the sufficiency of the demand and did not expressly deny it, instead asserting that he was investigating the equities of the case before acting. South Dakota argued that once the statutory conditions were met, the Governor had a mandatory duty to issue an arrest warrant and could be compelled to do so by mandamus.

Issue

Whether the Governor of California has a judicially enforceable duty to comply with a proper extradition demand under either the Extradition Clause of the United States Constitution or California's Extradition Act. If not, may California courts nevertheless compel the Governor to issue an extradition warrant by writ of mandate?

Rule

The Extradition Clause imposes a mandatory obligation on a governor to extradite a fugitive upon proper demand, but neither the federal Constitution nor California's Extradition Act authorizes courts to enforce that duty by mandamus. Under California's Extradition Act, the Governor retains discretionary power to refuse an extradition demand in an appropriate case, although mandamus may compel the Governor to exercise that discretion by either granting or denying the demand within a reasonable time.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada sent California's Governor a facially proper demand seeking the return of Omar Velez, who allegedly fled Reno after being charged with burglary. The Governor publicly acknowledged that the papers satisfy all statutory requirements but announced that he would not honor the request because he disagrees with Nevada's sentencing policies.

If Nevada petitions a California court for mandamus ordering the Governor to issue the extradition warrant, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the Extradition Clause imposes a mandatory obligation to extradite, but that obligation is not judicially enforceable by mandamus because neither the Constitution nor implementing law provides a coercive judicial mechanism. The same is true under California's Extradition Act as construed by the court. Thus a court may not order the Governor to issue the warrant, even where the papers are concededly sufficient. (Derived from South Dakota v. Brown (n.d.).)