The Law of Nations in American Law

Case: United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992; US)

Facts: Machain is a citizen and resident of Mexico. He was indicted by US DEA

(Drug Enforcement Administration) for participating in the kidnap and murder of a
DEA agent, by prolonging the victim's life so other's could torture him further
(allegedly). Machain was forcibly kidnapped from Mexico and brought to Texas for
trial. Respondent moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that his abduction
constituted outrageous gov't conduct, and that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to try him b/c he was abducted in violation of the extradition treaty
btwn US and Mexico. District court dismissed, and ordered that he be repatriated
to Mexico, and court of appeals affirmed both. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue: Whether there is jurisdiction for a Mexican national, abducted to the US,
when US and Mexico had an extradition treaty. -Yes.

Holding: Dismissal reversed.

Reasoning:
• First court looks at the Extradition treaty to decide whether the abduction
violates it.
○ Treaty says nothing about US and Mexico's obligations to refrain from
abducting people, or the consequences if this happens.
○ Treaty only says that neither party is bound to delivery upon the other
its own nationals. At each country's discretion.

Notes
• US first sought extradition, was denied, then kidnapped him.
• Treaty outlines what gov't can do, but not exhaustive; doesn’t say what else
they can do
○ Treaty is silent on this
• Uses case law: Kirby v. Illinois
○ Private kidnapping permitted, and allowed to prosecute
• Dr also says this is in violation of CIL
○ b/c its actually gov't kidnapping (while in Kirby it was a private
citizen)
○ Dissent says this is bad policy
• Pg 238 - this abduction may be shocking, and violate CIL, but we have to go by
the treaty

• What does this case say about relevance of CIL?

○ There is a lot of debate on whether CIL should be incorporated into
domestic law, and effect of treaties.
○ (opinion from class) Maybe court should have used CIL as a gap-filler
here, where the treaty was silent on this issue.
• Another way Judge here could have gotten his result w/o totally disregarding
CIL?

• Should int'l law be a gap-filler?

○ How? When?