United States v. Alvarez-Machain

The Case: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on extradition

Date: Decided on June 15, 1992

Significance: In this ruling, the Supreme Court held that nothing in the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico and nothing in general international law prohibited the trial of a defendant whose arrest was the result of a forcible abduction from Mexico.

Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a physician and a citizen of Mexico, was believed by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to have been partly responsible for the torture and murder of a DEA agent. Alvarez-Machain was indicted by a federal court for kidnapping and murder. After U.S. negotiations with Mexico for his extradition failed, he was forcibly abducted from his office in Guadalajara, flown to the United States, and arrested on arrival. His abductors, though not employees of the federal government, had been solicited by the DEA and promised a reward.

When Alvarez-Machain was brought to trial, he moved to dismiss the indictment because his arrest had been illegal. The district court judge found that although the Drug Enforcement Administration did not directly participate in the kidnapping, it was responsible for it. The indictment was dismissed on the grounds that the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico had been violated by the illegal arrest. The court of appeals upheld the district court, arguing that the abduction violated the purpose of the extradition treaty. The government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. He held that the complicity of the U.S. government in Alvarez-Machain’s abduction did not nullify the indictment. The case turned on a narrow question: Does the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico provide the only means by which a defendant can legally be brought from one of the two countries to the other? As the majority saw the case, the extradition treaty does not establish an exclusive means of bringing potential defendants from Mexico to the United States. It does not specifically exclude kidnapping or unlawful arrest. Therefore the illegality of U.S. actions in Mexico did not affect the validity of the indictment. The case was remanded to the lower courts so that Alvarez-Machain’s trial could go forward.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a strong dissenting opinion in which he argued that the extradition processes set out in the treaty are designed to provide an orderly means of dealing with cross-border crimes. The dissent argued that by substituting kidnapping for extradition, the United States had violated the treaty. Stevens also argued that the decision would encourage the government to engage in additional acts of international lawlessness.

Although the decision cleared the way for Alvarez-Machain to be put on trial in the United States, Mexican protests about U.S. violation of Mexican sovereignty resulted in an executive decision to return Alvarez-Machain to Mexico. He was repatriated within a few months of the Court’s decision.

Bibliography

Blakesley, Christopher L. Terrorism, Drugs, International Law, and the Protection of Human Liberty. Ardley-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Transnational, 1992.

Cassese, Antonio. International Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.