holding that, “[b]eeause the duty is directly imposed upon the States by the Constitution itself, there can be no need to weigh the performance of the federal obligation against the powers reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, “[b]eeause the duty is directly imposed upon the States by the Constitution itself, there can be no need to weigh the performance of the federal obligation against the powers reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment”
- holding that, "[b]ecause the duty is directly imposed upon the States by the Constitution itself, there can be no need to weigh the performance of the federal obligation against the powers reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment"
- abandoning rule first adopted in Kentucky v. Dennison , 65 U.S. (24 How.) 66, 16 L.Ed. 717 (1860), when federal power was "at its lowest ebb" on eve of Civil War, that asylum state's obligation to deliver fugitive to demanding state was "moral" rather than "mandatory and compulsory" (quoting Dennison , 65 U.S. (24 How.) at 107 )
- rejecting the premise that states and the federal government should always be viewed as coequal sovereigns and explaining that “[i]t has long been a settled principle that federal courts may enjoin unconstitutional action by state officials.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice O’Connor,
with whom
Justice Powell joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join Parts I, II-A, II-C, and III of the Court’s opinion. Because the Court ultimately resolves this case under the *231 Extradition Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3182 , I do not find Part II-B, and its statements concerning the Extradition Clause of the Constitution, necessary to the decision of this case. Accordingly, I do not subscribe to that part of the Court’s opinion. See, e. g., Jean v. Nelson, 472 U. S. 846, 854 (1985); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 361, n. 10 (1983); Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).