×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Sovereign Immunity Not Waived by Federal Extradition Act
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the Federal Extradition Act does not waive a state's sovereign immunity. This action was filed by St. Charles County, Missouri (County), seeking $5,421.86 from the State of Wisconsin for costs incurred for jailing a Wisconsin fugitive pending extradition.
The County contended that the Act established a cause of action for a county to recover extradition costs and expenses from a demanding jurisdiction. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3195, "All costs or expenses incurred in any extradition proceeding in apprehending securing, and transmitting a fugitive shall be paid by the demanding authority." The Missouri federal district court held sovereign immunity barred the lawsuit.
The Eighth Circuit agreed, for the Act does not expressly abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity because its intent to do so must be expressed "in unmistakable language in the statute itself." Moreover, § 3195 is not a mechanism of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a county from the unconstitutional deprivation of property by a jurisdiction's demand to hold a fugitive, because the Act was passed 75 years before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed.
Therefore, Wisconsin is entitled to sovereign immunity because the Act does not waive that immunity and Wisconsin never expressed consent to being sued in federal court. See: St. Charles County v. Wisconsin, 447 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2006).
The County contended that the Act established a cause of action for a county to recover extradition costs and expenses from a demanding jurisdiction. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3195, "All costs or expenses incurred in any extradition proceeding in apprehending securing, and transmitting a fugitive shall be paid by the demanding authority." The Missouri federal district court held sovereign immunity barred the lawsuit.
The Eighth Circuit agreed, for the Act does not expressly abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity because its intent to do so must be expressed "in unmistakable language in the statute itself." Moreover, § 3195 is not a mechanism of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a county from the unconstitutional deprivation of property by a jurisdiction's demand to hold a fugitive, because the Act was passed 75 years before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed.
Therefore, Wisconsin is entitled to sovereign immunity because the Act does not waive that immunity and Wisconsin never expressed consent to being sued in federal court. See: St. Charles County v. Wisconsin, 447 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
St. Charles County v. Wisconsin
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 447 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2006) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |