Extradition is becoming a political football — here’s how the states can stop it

The Extradition Clause of the Constitution was designed so that one state’s criminal charges could not be nullified by another state’s politics. But last month’s ruling in the extradition dispute between Texas and Minnesota shows how easy it is to do exactly that.  

A governor who wants to shield someone from a prosecution he objects to, or from a sister state whose politics he finds distasteful, may simply keep an extradition demand “under investigation” indefinitely. This is actually just one of many loopholes in extradition law increasingly likely to be exploited in today’s intensely polarized political climate. Texas, Minnesota and the rest of the states can and should seal these legal cracks before they cause further damage to interstate relations and the rule of law.

In late August, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. declined to order the extradition of Christian Castro, an ICE officer wanted in Minnesota for allegedly shooting Julio Sosa-Celis through a closed door and then lying to investigators about the incident.

Rodriguez’s opinion highlighted a paradox in extradition law: In response to Minnesota’s lawsuit, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) claimed he had not yet decided whether or not to reject Minnesota’s extradition demand — that he was still investigating it. Since Texas said it was still investigating, Rodriguez concluded, the case was not yet ripe for judicial intervention.  

However, in a conspicuous footnote, the judge asserted that the answer to the question Texas purported to be investigating — whether as a legal........

© The Hill