Is there a law that states have to turn over illegal criminal?
Executive summary
Yes—under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, one state generally must deliver a person who fled to another state when the demanding state formally requests surrender; that duty is implemented by federal statutes (not optional private comity) and is enforceable in federal court after the Supreme Court’s modern rulings (Article IV’s Extradition Clause; 18 U.S.C. §3182) [1][2][3]. Internationally, surrender to foreign governments is a separate process governed by treaties, federal statutes and executive decisions [4][5].
1. Constitutional duty: Article IV’s Extradition Clause is the starting point
The Constitution expressly contemplates that a person charged with a serious crime who flees to another state “shall on demand … be delivered up,” establishing a constitutional duty that undergirds interstate extradition (Article IV, Section 2) [1][2]. Early federal practice grew from a 1793 act reinforcing governors’ obligations to return fugitives, showing that the obligation has deep statutory and constitutional roots [6].
2. Federal law implements that duty—the Extradition Act and 18 U.S.C. §3182
Congress has codified procedures for interstate rendition so that extradition is resolved under federal law: Section 3182 and related provisions set out how demanding states make requests, how the asylum state’s executive must respond, and how federal courts review the process [3][2]. State-to-state surrender is therefore not merely voluntary politeness between governors; the federal statute creates a legal framework for compelling compliance [2].
3. Federal courts can enforce compliance—Branstad overruled Dennison
The 1860 Supreme Court decision in Kentucky v. Dennison once held governors had discretion and federal courts lacked enforcement power, but that rule has been superseded: in modern precedent federal courts can require state officials to comply with extradition obligations, meaning refusal by a governor can be challenged and remedied in federal court (summary of historical shift) [7][8]. Sources emphasize that governors “do not have any discretion” in determining whether to comply and federal courts may order enforcement [6][8].
4. There are practical and legal limits—timing, custody, and state procedures
The duty is not absolute in practice: an asylum state may satisfy its own legal obligations before surrendering a prisoner (for example, if the person is serving a sentence locally) and extradition may be delayed while local procedures and habeas or identity challenges proceed; states also follow the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act or other statutory frameworks which can influence steps and costs [1][6][8]. Some states may be less likely to pursue minor offenses across jurisdictions because of expense, and the asylum state’s own laws and courts can impose procedural pauses [7][6].
5. International extradition is different—treaties, dual criminality, and executive discretion
Surrender to a foreign country runs through a separate judicial-and-executive process: U.S. courts determine if treaty or statutory requirements are met (including “dual criminality”), then the Secretary of State has the executive role in the final surrender decision; extradition to or from foreign states depends on existing treaties and discretionary executive determinations, not the interstate Extradition Clause [5][9][4]. Federal law and treaties frequently list qualifying crimes, allow political-offense exceptions, and protect against surrender where human-rights risks exist [5][10].
6. What this means in straight terms—and limits of the reporting
Plainly: within the United States there is a binding constitutional and statutory obligation for a state to turn over a person who fled to another state when the demanding state makes a proper request, and federal courts can enforce that obligation (Article IV; 18 U.S.C. §3182; modern Supreme Court rulings) [1][3][8]. That duty can be delayed or conditioned by local custody, pending sentences, identity and habeas challenges, and procedural requirements under state and federal law [6][1]. The provided sources do not exhaust every possible exception or the full body of case law about narrow defenses to extradition, so further case-specific legal research would be required to answer how the rule applies in a particular incident (limitation: not covered comprehensively in the supplied material) [7][9].