http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/current/politics/stories/extradition.html (Einblicke ins Internet, 10/1995)
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A federal judge declared unconstitutional a law used for approximately 150 years to extradite accused criminals from the United States to foreign countries.
The precedent-setting ruling held that the law violates the constitutional requirement on separation of powers between the branches of government by allowing the executive branch to review extradition decisions made by the judiciary.
The decision came in the case of two Chicago men who have been sought by Canada to face kidnapping charges. But the sweeping ruling has a broad impact as the judge said it should apply to all other similar extradition cases.
Justice Department spokesman John Russell said no decision had been made on whether to appeal the decision before a U.S. Court of Appeals.
He said the Justice and State Departments were reviewing the ruling to determine its immediate impact on pending cases.
The law at issue dates back to 1848, but the government said the same procedures had been in effect extending back more than 150 years and had never been challenged in court.
Under the law, a federal judge conducts an extradition hearing, receives evidence and rules if the accused criminal should be extradited. The judge certifies the finding to the secretary of state, who is part of the executive branch, and the secretary then has the discretion to review the legal determinations of the extradition judges.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said in the 32-page ruling that the secretary of state's review renders the law unconstitutional. He said he felt compelled to answer the argument that the law has been on the books in essentially the same form for more than 150 years and has not appeared to cause any significant difficulties.
``The short answer is that a statute which offends separation-of-powers by permitting the executive to review the decisions of the judiciary is unconstitutional, period.''
He said the courts have a duty to strike down a law once its constitutional problems become apparent, no matter how long it has been in effect or how practical it appears to be.
``It is certainly unfortunate that this fundamental flaw (in the law) has gone unnoticed for so long; however, the court will not further compound this error by turning a blind eye to the statute now,'' he said Thursday.
Lamberth said a second reason why he acted was that the law effectively eliminated accountability by the secretary of state for an extradition decision.