Andrew and Tristan Tate were arrested in Miami on July 18 on a request from the United Kingdom, where they face rape and sex trafficking charges. They appeared in federal court two days later, and their lawyer, Joseph McBride, said they would fight extradition, the PA news agency reported. McBride called the case a "political witch hunt." Both brothers have repeatedly denied wrongdoing.
On September 9, after an eight-hour detention hearing in late August, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis ruled that the brothers must stay in jail while the case plays out. She found they had not shown they were not a flight risk or a danger, or that "special circumstances warrant their release," the Associated Press reported.
The case is a reminder that extradition runs on two very different tracks in American law. One governs fugitives who cross state lines. The other governs people wanted by foreign governments.
Between states, a duty written into the Constitution
Moving a fugitive from one state to another rests on the Extradition Clause in Article IV. It says a person "charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice," and is found in another state "shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up," as the Constitution Annotated sets out.
Congress put that duty into a statute in 1793. The law, now found at 18 U.S.C. 3182, requires the governor of the state where the person is found to hand him over. For more than a century, though, that duty had no teeth. In Kentucky v. Dennison in 1861, the Supreme Court said federal courts could not force a governor to comply.
That changed in 1987. In Puerto Rico v. Branstad, the Court overruled Dennison, calling it "the product of another time." Today a state seeking a fugitive can go to federal court to make another state's officials follow the law.
A person facing interstate extradition can challenge it, but the review is narrow. A court in the state where he was caught does not hear defenses such as an expired statute of limitations, and it does not try to predict how a trial would turn out. Those questions belong to the courts of the state bringing the charge. One of the few ways out is to show, by clear and satisfactory evidence, that the person was not in the demanding state when the crime happened.
Between countries, a treaty and a final call in Washington
International extradition depends on treaties between governments. In the Tate case, a U.S. judge will consider whether the legal conditions for extradition are met, but under U.S. law the final decision rests with the Secretary of State, now Marco Rubio. The State Department can refuse a request even after a judge certifies it.
Getting out of jail while that plays out is hard. Judge Louis required the brothers to show "special circumstances" before she would release them, and they did not meet it. The AP described the process as potentially "monthslong," and McBride estimated the proceedings would take around 60 days.
The British case is large. According to PA, the Crown Prosecution Service brought 38 new charges, tied to alleged offenses between July 2010 and August 2017, on top of 21 existing charges. McBride called the new counts "salacious and defamatory" and said they were "designed to poison the jury pool."
What a hearing does and does not decide
On both tracks, the court is not holding a trial. Between states, the courts of the state bringing the charge decide guilt and hear the defenses. Between countries, a U.S. judge looks at whether the conditions for extradition are met, and the Secretary of State makes the final call. Guilt is decided later, in the place that brought the case.
Michael Dye and Lloyd Golburgh joined Daniel Rosenberg in Episode 82 to go through the UK charges and why extradition is so hard to stop. Our earlier story on the Miami arrest has more on that conversation.
This article is general information about how the law works, not legal advice.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
