Lo Duca v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
93 F.3d 1100 (1996)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Paolo Lo Duca (plaintiff) was convicted of drug charges in Italy while he was living in New York. Pursuant to an extradition treaty, Italy requested Lo Duca’s extradition, and a federal magistrate judge in the United States found Lo Duca extraditable under 18 U.S.C. § 3184, the extradition statute used for almost 150 years to extradite fugitives located in the United States. The extradition statute allowed a federal magistrate to examine the charges against a person and recommend whether the person was extraditable. The recommendation would then be certified to the Secretary of State, who would independently determine whether the United States wished to extradite the person. Lo Duca initiated a habeas corpus action, arguing that the extradition statute was unconstitutional. Specifically, Lo Duca argued the statute violated the Constitution’s mandate of separation of powers by requiring federal Article III judges to have their judgments revised by the executive branch. In the alternative, Lo Duca argued that if the federal magistrates were not exercising Article III power, the statute was unconstitutional because it authorized federal judges to participate in extrajudicial activities without an appointment of authority by the executive branch. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Lo Duca’s action. Lo Duca appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.