What did the US Supreme Court decide in Kentucky v. Dennison?

Answer 1

Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 US 66 (1861)

In early October 1859, C. W. Nuckols (or Nichols, depending on the source) and his slave, Charlotte, traveled from their home in Louisville, Kentucky, to Wheeling, West Virginia, where Nuckols had business. He had allowed Charlotte to accompany him to visit her mother, who lived in the Wheeling area.

On October 4, 1859, the pair stopped in Cincinnati, Ohio, a state that outlawed slavery. Charlotte was allegedly approached by a group of abolitionists, including a free African-American man named Willis Lago, who convinced her to leave Nuckols and petition the Court for her freedom, which was granted. [It is not clear what became of Charlotte at this point, although she was never reported recaptured.]

Nuckols attempted to fight the Ohio court's decision. Failing that, he returned to Kentucky to file charges against Lago for violating his state's laws against helping a slave attain his or her freedom. The Woodford County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Lago:

"The grand jury of Woodford county, in the name and by the authority of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, accuse Willis Lago, free man of color, of the crime of assisting a slave to escape, &c., committed as follows, namely: the said Willis Lago, free man of color, on the fourth day of October 1859, in the county aforesaid, not having lawful claim, and not having any color of claim thereto, did seduce and entice Charlotte, a slave, the property of C. W. Nuckols, to leave her owner and possessor, and did aid and assist said slave in an attempt to make her escape from her said owner and possessor, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Kentucky."

The Governor of Kentucky waited to request extradition because he knew the current Ohio Governor, Salmon Chase (who later became a US Supreme Court Chief Justice), was a staunch abolitionist. When Governor Dennison won the 1860 election, Kentucky Governor Beriah Magoffin sent an extradition order for Willis Lago.

Dennison, who had run for office on a platform promising he would not return emancipated individuals to slave states, refused to honor the extradition order.

Magoffin petitioned the US Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus (a court order compeling an official to take - or refrain from taking - an action for which he or she is legally responsible) forcing Dennison to release Lago to Kentucky authorities.

The Supreme Court was forced to consider mandamus under original jurisdiction (meaning the Supreme Court acts as the trial court) because the dispute was between two states. This created a dilemma for Chief Justice Taney and other members of the Court who were pro-slavery, but who didn't want to validate the federal government's power over the states because the Southern states had already begun succeeding from the Union. Kentucky had not yet decided what course to follow.

In an 8-0 decision that angered both the North and South, the Court chastised Governor Dennison for not honoring the extradition order, as required by law. Chief Justice Taney wrote that the state of Ohio had an obligation to turn over even someone indicted on a misdemeanor in another state. (It seems to have been overlooked that the alleged "crime" occurred in Ohio, not Kentucky)

In defiance of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Taney also declared that the Governor is the executive authority of a state, and that Congress could order him to act, but could not coerce or punish him for failing to do so.

Surprisingly, Kentucky v. Dennison, (1861) remained a controlling precedent until the decision was overturned by Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 US 219 (1987). Once slavery ended, extradition again became a routine criminal justice procedure that was seldom challenged.