Federal Extradition Defense: International & Interstate

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Extradition is the formal process by which one jurisdiction surrenders a person to another to face criminal charges. It can mean transfer from a foreign country to the United States — or from the United States to a foreign country — and it can also mean transfer between U.S. states. In every form, extradition is a serious legal proceeding with its own rules, its own narrow defenses, and its own short timelines.

At Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C., we represent people facing extradition and the criminal cases that drive it. Our principal attorney, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, is admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and all twelve federal circuits, was recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers in America for Appellate Practice, and carries a 2026 Chambers USA ranking in Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations. Working alongside Managing Director Christopher Zoukis, she brings that appellate depth to these cross-border and cross-state matters. International extradition is governed by treaty and by 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and related statutes; interstate extradition flows from the Constitution’s Extradition Clause and 18 U.S.C. § 3182.

This guide explains how international and interstate extradition work, what happens at an extradition hearing, the requirements the government must meet, the limited defenses that apply, and what to do if you or a loved one faces extradition. Because the windows to act are short, a federal extradition lawyer should be involved at the first sign of an extradition request.

Quick Answer

Question	Answer
What is extradition?	The legal process of surrendering a person from one jurisdiction to another to face criminal charges or serve a sentence. It can be international or interstate.
What is dual criminality?	A treaty requirement that the conduct charged be a crime in both the requesting country and the United States. It is a key issue in international extradition.
Is an extradition hearing a trial?	No. An extradition hearing does not decide guilt or innocence. It determines only whether the person is subject to surrender under the applicable treaty or law.
How does interstate extradition work?	It flows from the Constitution’s Extradition Clause and 18 U.S.C. § 3182. The demanding state’s governor requests the person, and the asylum state’s governor issues a warrant.
Can extradition be fought?	Yes, though the defenses are limited. International defenses focus on the treaty, dual criminality, and evidence; interstate review is narrow and habeas-based.
How can our firm help?	A paid, one-hour initial consultation lets us examine the request, separate viable treaty or habeas arguments from dead ends, and plan both the extradition fight and the underlying case.

Key Takeaways

• Extradition surrenders a person from one jurisdiction to another to face charges; it can be international or interstate.
• International extradition rests on treaties and is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and related statutes.
• The international extradition hearing decides only whether the treaty’s requirements are met — it is not a trial.
• Dual criminality, extraditability, identity, and sufficiency of the evidence are central issues in international cases.
• If the judge certifies the case, the final surrender decision rests with the Secretary of State.
• Interstate extradition flows from the Constitution’s Extradition Clause and 18 U.S.C. § 3182, with most states using the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
• Interstate review is narrow — documentation, the charge, identity, and fugitive status — and is pursued through habeas corpus.
• Extradition is the gateway to a criminal case; counsel should plan the underlying defense from the start.
• The rule of specialty (United States v. Rauscher) limits post-surrender charges, and bail in international cases requires “special circumstances” under Wright v. Henkel.

What Is Extradition?

Extradition is the legal process by which a person is surrendered from one jurisdiction to another to face criminal prosecution or to serve a sentence. It exists so that borders — between nations or between states — do not become safe havens for people sought by another jurisdiction’s justice system.

There are two distinct forms. International extradition involves the transfer of a person between the United States and a foreign country, and it is governed by extradition treaties and federal statutes. Interstate extradition — often called rendition — involves the transfer of a person from one U.S. state to another, and it flows from the Constitution’s Extradition Clause.

The two processes are very different in their rules and in the room they leave for a defense. What they share is that extradition proceedings are narrow: they are not the place to try the underlying criminal case. Understanding what an extradition proceeding can and cannot decide is the starting point for any defense.

International Extradition

International extradition rests on treaties. The United States can generally extradite a person to a foreign country, or receive a person from one, only where an extradition treaty between the two nations is in force. The existence and terms of the applicable treaty define what is possible. That treaty requirement is not a formality but a constitutional limit: in Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5 (1936), the Supreme Court held that extradition is a national power the Executive cannot exercise without authority conferred by a treaty or an act of Congress, so where no treaty reaches the person or the offense, there is no power to surrender at all.

The process typically begins with a formal request from the foreign government to the U.S. Department of State, which — together with the Department of Justice — evaluates whether the request falls within the relevant treaty. If the request moves forward, a complaint is filed and the person is arrested, leading to an extradition hearing before a federal judge or magistrate judge under 18 U.S.C. § 3184.

A central concept in international extradition is dual criminality — the requirement, found in most treaties, that the conduct charged be a crime in both the requesting country and the United States. The offense must be extraditable under the treaty, and the dual-criminality requirement is one of the points a defense examines closely.

Provisional Arrest, Red Notices, and Bail

An international extradition case often begins before the formal treaty paperwork is complete. Most modern treaties permit provisional arrest in urgent situations: at the requesting country’s ask, the person is taken into custody first, and the foreign government then has a treaty-fixed window — commonly in the range of 45 to 60 days, depending on the treaty — to deliver the full extradition package. If the documents do not arrive in time, release can be sought, though the request itself does not disappear.

Many clients first learn they are wanted abroad through an Interpol Red Notice. A Red Notice is not an arrest warrant in the United States, but it can produce real consequences — detention at a border crossing, visa and immigration problems, frozen accounts, and the practical inability to travel. Counsel can evaluate whether a Red Notice is vulnerable to challenge through Interpol’s own review commission while preparing for the possibility of a formal extradition request.

Custody rules in this arena are also unlike ordinary federal practice. Since Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40 (1903), courts have held that bail should not ordinarily be granted in international extradition cases and have required a showing of “special circumstances” before release. Building that showing — health conditions, the complexity and likely length of the proceedings, weak evidence, deep community ties — is one of the first projects in any contested case.

The International Extradition Hearing

The international extradition hearing is the core proceeding, but it is important to understand its limited purpose. It is not a trial. Its function is to determine whether the person is subject to surrender under the applicable treaty and law.

At the hearing, the court generally considers whether it has jurisdiction, whether a valid extradition treaty is in force, whether the offense is extraditable, whether the person before the court is the person sought, and whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charge — a standard the courts treat as the equivalent of probable cause. The hearing does not decide guilt or innocence, and the evidentiary rules are far more relaxed than at a criminal trial.

If the judge finds the requirements satisfied, the judge certifies the case to the Secretary of State. The final decision whether to surrender the person then rests with the Secretary of State, who acts according to the treaty. This two-step structure — a judicial finding followed by an executive decision — is unique to international extradition, and it shapes where and how a defense can be mounted.

Applied Insight: Because an extradition hearing is not a trial, the instinct to “prove innocence” there is misplaced. The judge is not deciding guilt — only whether the treaty’s requirements are met. Effective extradition defense focuses on the treaty, the dual-criminality requirement, identity, and the sufficiency of the evidence, not on relitigating the underlying allegations.

Defenses to International Extradition

The defenses available in an international extradition case are limited, but they are real. They generally focus on the requirements of the treaty and the statute rather than on the merits of the foreign charge.

• No valid treaty. Extradition generally requires a treaty in force; the absence of one, or a treaty that does not cover the offense, can be a complete bar.
• Lack of dual criminality. If the charged conduct is not a crime in the United States, the dual-criminality requirement may not be satisfied.
• The offense is not extraditable. The offense must fall within the treaty’s coverage; some treaties exclude certain categories of offense.
• Insufficient evidence. The requesting country must present evidence sufficient to sustain the charge; a genuine failure of proof can defeat certification.
• Identity. The person before the court must be the person actually sought.
• Treaty-based exceptions. Many treaties contain exceptions, such as for political offenses or where the statute of limitations has run, and humanitarian and other considerations can be raised with the Secretary of State.

Because review of a certification order is limited and is generally pursued through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, identifying the right argument early — and preserving it — is essential. Extradition defense is technical work, and it rewards precision.

The Rule of Specialty and the Doctrine of Non-Inquiry

Two doctrines shape what happens after the courtroom phase of an international extradition, and both should inform strategy from day one.

The first is the rule of specialty, rooted in United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (1886). A person surrendered under a treaty may be tried only for an offense the treaty covers and for which extradition was actually granted — not for other charges built on the same facts — until he has had a reasonable opportunity, after acquittal or completion of the sentence, to leave the country. The Supreme Court in Rauscher rejected the government’s attempt to convict an extradited defendant of a lesser, non-treaty offense resting on precisely the same evidence. For someone extradited to the United States, specialty operates as a continuing limit on the prosecution; for someone resisting extradition from the United States, it frames negotiations over which charges the surrender will cover.

The second is the doctrine of non-inquiry: extradition courts generally will not examine the fairness of the requesting country’s justice system or the treatment the person is likely to receive there. Those concerns are not lost — they are channeled to the Secretary of State, who makes the final surrender decision and can attach conditions or refuse surrender on humanitarian grounds. That allocation of authority is why a complete defense works both tracks at once: the legal arguments before the judge and the diplomatic and humanitarian presentation to the executive branch.

Interstate Extradition (Rendition)

Interstate extradition — the transfer of a person from one state to another — works very differently from the international process. It is rooted in the Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that a person charged in one state who flees to another shall, on demand, be delivered up to the state with jurisdiction over the crime.

The federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3182 implements the Extradition Clause, and most states have adopted a version of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act to govern the procedure. The process generally begins with the demanding state’s governor requesting the person, supported by an indictment or affidavit, and the asylum state’s governor issuing a warrant.

The defining feature of interstate extradition is how narrow it is. The Supreme Court has described it as a summary, mandatory proceeding — the asylum state’s governor has a ministerial duty to deliver the fugitive on a proper demand, and since Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987), federal courts can compel a governor who refuses. The asylum state does not retry the case; it addresses only a small set of threshold questions.

Challenging Interstate Extradition

Because interstate extradition is so narrow, the grounds to challenge it are few. A challenge is typically brought by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the asylum state, and the court’s review is confined to a limited set of questions.

In Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978), the Supreme Court fixed the asylum-state inquiry at exactly four questions: whether the extradition documents are facially in order, whether the person has been charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the person named is the person sought, and whether the person is a fugitive. Doran also held that once a neutral judicial officer in the demanding state has found probable cause, the asylum state’s courts have no power to second-guess that finding — the strength of the evidence and the question of guilt belong to the demanding state’s courts.

That narrowness does not make counsel unnecessary — far from it. An attorney can test whether the paperwork is truly in order, whether identity is correct, and whether the fugitive requirement is met, and can address related issues such as bail and the timing of transfer. Even within a narrow proceeding, careful representation matters.

Applied Insight: The narrowness of interstate extradition leads some people to assume nothing can be done — and so they waive the proceeding without advice. That is a mistake. Even where extradition itself cannot be stopped, counsel can address identity, documentation, bail, and the broader strategy for the criminal case waiting in the demanding state. The extradition stage is the beginning of the defense, not a formality to be skipped.

What to Do If You Face Extradition

If you or a loved one faces extradition — international or interstate — the steps taken early matter, because the timelines are short.

Retain experienced counsel immediately; extradition proceedings move quickly and the windows to raise defenses are limited. Do not waive an extradition hearing or sign documents without legal advice — a waiver can give up rights that should be evaluated first. Do not discuss the underlying allegations with anyone other than your attorney. And recognize that extradition and the underlying criminal case are two fronts: counsel should be planning the defense of the charges themselves even as the extradition question is litigated.

Extradition is rarely the end of the story — it is the gateway to a criminal case in the requesting jurisdiction. Treating it as a single, isolated event, rather than the first stage of a larger defense, is a missed opportunity.

How Our Firm Handles Extradition Matters

At Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C., we approach extradition as both a discrete proceeding and the opening of a broader defense. Our principal attorney, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, has litigated well over 100 federal appeals and a deep docket of habeas corpus and post-conviction matters among more than 330 federal proceedings nationwide — and because extradition is decided largely through habeas review and writ practice, that habeas-and-appellate orientation is exactly the discipline these cases demand.

Our work includes analyzing the applicable treaty or interstate documentation, testing dual criminality, the extraditability of the offense, identity, and the sufficiency of the evidence, litigating the extradition hearing, pursuing habeas review where grounds exist, raising appropriate considerations with the executive branch in international cases, and preparing the defense of the underlying charges. We represent federal defendants nationwide through admission pro hac vice.

For broader context, see our overview of the federal criminal process and our guide to arrest, initial appearance, and arraignment.

Talk With a Federal Extradition Lawyer

Extradition proceedings are narrow, technical, and fast-moving — and the consequences are profound. Whether the matter is international or interstate, the defenses that exist must be identified and raised quickly, and the underlying criminal case must be planned from the start.

Every extradition matter we accept starts with a paid, one-hour initial consultation in which we study the request or warrant, sort the treaty and statutory questions from the dead ends, and sketch a two-track strategy — the extradition fight and the criminal case behind it. If you or someone you love is facing surrender to another state or country, book that hour now; the calendar in these cases is unforgiving.