Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Branstad: The centralization of the criminal extradition law

Abstract

This paper uses the Supreme Court's decision in Puerto Rico v. Brandstad (483 U.S. 219 (19861) to challenge the bipolar model of judicial decision making. In this case, the Court, dominated by conservative justices, Overturned the 1861 landmark <ruling established in Kentucky v. Dennison (65 U.S. 66[1861 I) according to which A "federal court could not issue a writ of mandamus compelling a state governor to extradite a fugitive a fugitive to a sister state under the Extradition Clause of the Constitution.' Using a centralization approach, it is argued that at the center of the of the Court's decision in Puerto Rico was a distrust by the Supreme Court in the ability of state elected representatives to deliberate on a number of social issues and /or to create and enforce race and gender blind laws. From this perspective, the Court's decision represented a symbolic attempt by the Court to formally integrate the island within the existent traditional political process of extradition in light of the island's subordinate and minoritarian territorial status. The political implication of this decision for Puerto Rico is also explored.