United States Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving United States — Requested and Requesting State

🇺🇸

United States

United States Extradition Law & Case Law — 70 cases

9
As requested
state
61
As requesting
state
Case Law
Extradition to the United States granted: constitutional reform allowing extradition of Costa Rican nationals applied to pending requests
✕
Summary
The case concerned appeals by the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney General’s Office against a first-instance decision refusing the extradition of a Costa Rican national requested by the United States for prosecution for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy offences. The first-instance court had held that the 2025 reform of Article 32 of the Costa Rican Constitution, which permits the extradition of nationals in cases of international drug trafficking and terrorism, could not apply to facts occurring before the reform entered into force. The Court of Appeal reversed that conclusion. Relying on binding Constitutional Chamber case law, it held that extradition is a procedural mechanism of international cooperation and that the constitutional reform was immediately applicable to pending extradition proceedings. The Court further reasoned that the Costa Rica–United States extradition treaty had already allowed, since 1991, the extradition of nationals where domestic constitutional law did not prohibit it; the 2025 reform therefore removed the internal constitutional obstacle rather than creating a new substantive offence or punishment. Since the first-instance court had already found that the treaty requirements were met, including double criminality, legality and non-prescription, the Court of Appeal granted extradition in deferred form, subject to the prior resolution of pending Costa Rican criminal proceedings and to formal assurances from the United States on speciality, non-imposition of death penalty or life imprisonment, and a maximum prison term not exceeding fifty years.
02/06/2026 · Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal, Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José · 2026-0960
🇨🇷Costa Rica → 🇺🇸United States
Granted with conditionsExtradition
Extradition to the United States refused: Costa Rican constitutional reform allowing nationals’ extradition not applied retroactively
✕
Summary
The case concerned a United States request for the extradition of a Costa Rican national wanted for prosecution in the Southern District of New York for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy offences. The Tribunal Penal found that the formal requirements of the Costa Rica–United States extradition treaty were satisfied, including double criminality, legal basis, validity of the prosecution, and the absence of political or military offences. It also noted that any surrender would require formal assurances on speciality and on the non-imposition of prohibited penalties, including death penalty, life imprisonment or a prison sentence exceeding fifty years. However, the Court refused extradition on the ground that the alleged conduct pre-dated the 2025 constitutional reform of Article 32 of the Costa Rican Constitution, which allowed the extradition of nationals in cases of international drug trafficking and terrorism. Relying on the principle of non-retroactivity and on a previous appellate decision, the Court held that the reform could not apply to facts occurring before its entry into force. Since the requested person was a Costa Rican national and the alleged conduct occurred before the reform, extradition was denied, although the Court held that Costa Rica should prosecute the facts domestically under Costa Rican law.
09/03/2026 · Tribunal Penal, First Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, Limón · 2026-000195
🇨🇷Costa Rica → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtradition
Extradition of an EU citizen to the United States does not require an assurance of return for sentence enforcement
✕
Summary
The requested person, a Danish national, sought reconsideration of the decision declaring his extradition to the United States admissible for specified fraud and money-laundering charges. The Court held that the assurances provided by the United States sufficiently guaranteed compliance with the principle of speciality, including a directly enforceable right before US courts and the exclusion of any sentence enhancement based on charges for which extradition had been refused. It also found that double criminality was satisfied, that the promised detention conditions met the applicable human-rights standards, and that neither fair-trial concerns nor family-life considerations barred extradition. Applying the principles established in Pisciotti, the Court further held that EU law did not require a return-transfer assurance, since Denmark had declined to issue a European Arrest Warrant and the requested person had no relevant ties to Germany. The applications for reconsideration were therefore rejected and continued extradition detention was ordered.
19/02/2026 · Higher Regional Court of Munich · 1 OAus 167/25, BeckRS 2026, 12519
🇩🇪Germany → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Competing EAW and extradition request require consultation of the member state of nationality and the Minister of Justice
✕
Summary
The United States requested the extradition of a Russian-German national from Italy for offences connected with the operation of a cryptocurrency exchange platform and money laundering. Germany subsequently issued a European Arrest Warrant concerning conduct allegedly overlapping with the facts underlying the extradition request. The Supreme Court quashed the decision authorising extradition because the Court of Appeal had relied on a decision issued in the separate EAW proceedings without formally introducing it into the extradition case or allowing the parties to comment on it, thereby breaching the adversarial principle. The Court further held that the requested judicial authority must activate the Petruhhin notification mechanism by informing the member state of nationality and allowing it a reasonable period to take appropriate action. In addition, where an EAW and a third-country extradition request coexist, the judicial authority must seek the prior opinion of the Minister of Justice under the EU-US Extradition Agreement before deciding which request should take precedence. The case was remitted for a new decision.
01/10/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 38544/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtradition
Citizenship: the requested Member State must inform the State of nationality of the person sought (Petruhhin)
✕
Summary
In matters of extradition of a national of a Member State of the European Union to a third State, the requested Member State, in application of the notification mechanism outlined in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber, 6 September 2016, C-182/15), is required to inform the State of nationality also where that State’s domestic law alone provides nationality as a ground for refusing surrender. This is in order to enable that State to issue, in turn, a European Arrest Warrant and request surrender for the purpose of prosecuting the same acts.
16/05/2024 · Italian Supreme Court · 21955/2024
🇮🇹Italy → 🇺🇸United States
Reversal and remandExtradition
Extradition, nationality discrimination and freedom of expression: leave to appeal conditionally granted in Assange v United States
✕
Summary
Extradition may be subject to appeal where the requested person establishes an arguable risk of prejudice at trial by reason of nationality, including where such prejudice may affect access to fundamental constitutional protections in the requesting State. In such circumstances, issues under Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) may arise, but only insofar as they are consequential upon the risk of discriminatory treatment. Extradition may also be challenged where assurances provided by the requesting State are insufficient, particularly in relation to the death penalty and the rule of specialty, with the court entitled to require further guarantees before determining whether the appeal should proceed. By contrast, the prohibition of extradition for political offences contained in an unincorporated bilateral treaty does not confer directly enforceable rights in domestic law, nor can it operate as an independent bar to extradition under the Extradition Act 2003. The statutory framework constitutes an exhaustive code, and extradition must be ordered unless a specific statutory bar is established. Finally, at the leave stage, the appellate court is not concerned with determining the merits of the grounds, but only with whether they disclose a real prospect that the lower court’s decision was wrong.
26/03/2024 · UK High Court of Justice · AC-2022-LON-001745 and 1746
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇸United States
PendingExtradition
Country Contributor
Bruce Zagaris
Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe LLP - Washington, DC
Bruce Zagaris is a partner in the Washington, D.C. firm of Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe LLP.
His practice focuses on international white collar crime, including tax controversy, money movement, international evidence gathering, extradition and INTERPOL, prisoner transfer matters, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Bruce has successfully challenged INTERPOL Red and Yellow notices. He has also authored a chapter about INTERPOL in his book International White Collar Crime (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Since 1985, he has served as editor-in-chief of the International Enforcement Law Reporter, a weekly and monthly journal on international enforcement law.
Bruce has been teaching law throughout his entire career. He has served as an adjunct professor, and since 2016, he has been teaching at Texas A&M Masters Program, the school’s Wealth Management and Risk Management course.
Bruce regularly appears as an expert witness in extradition, evidence gathering, international tax, financial regulatory, and money laundering cases. He has authored and edited six books and many law review and other articles. He has worked as a consultant for international organizations on a variety of international enforcement matters.
Country Contributor
Joshua Kolsrud
Kolsrud Law Offices - Phoenix
Josh Kolsrud is a former federal prosecutor turned aggressive criminal defense attorney with deep experience in complex international and federal criminal cases.
A native of Phoenix, Arizona, Josh graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University’s Barrett Honors College in 2004 and received his Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law in 2007.
He began his career at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and later served as Senior Trial Attorney for the Coconino County Attorney’s Office. Josh was then recruited to the United States Attorney’s Office, where he spent more than five and a half years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting cases involving human trafficking, drug trafficking, illegal reentry, gun crimes, white-collar fraud, and other federal offenses with cross-border elements. He successfully authored and won two appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Josh was personally recruited by the Attorney General of the Republic of Palau to lead an anti-human sex trafficking operation in the South Pacific. His efforts helped rescue hundreds of victims from sexual slavery and included prosecuting one of the only jury trials in Palau’s history.
With extensive experience in transnational crime, international investigations, and federal appellate practice, Josh brings unique insight into extradition and cross-border criminal matters.
Country Contributor
Jeffrey Lehtman
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Jeffrey Lehtman's practice focuses on assisting clients with internal and government investigations, global regulatory compliance, and complex cross-border litigation. Client feedback in Chambers Global describes Jeff as "extremely available no matter the issue at hand" and notes he is "business-minded and addresses what needs immediate action first." Clients say "…his advice is outstanding."
Jeff has particular experience counseling clients with regard to civil, criminal, and regulatory issues arising in their international operations, ranging from compliance strategies to mitigate potential risk to internal and government investigations. In addition to counseling clients on issues arising from day-to-day operations, he has represented multinational companies, financial institutions, fintech companies, professional sports teams, international development banks, and their officers and directors in connection with investigations before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and numerous other domestic and foreign regulatory and government bodies.
Jeff’s substantive experience includes the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, and economic sanctions laws, as well as allegations relating to accounting and disclosure irregularities, insider trading and workplace misconduct. In addition, Jeff has experience advising clients in connection with international extradition matters and international assistance among regulatory authorities (MLATs).
Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Jeff was a partner at boutique firms in Washington D.C. and an AmLaw 200 firm. In addition, Jeff was previously Senior Regional Counsel at Citibank, overseeing regulatory, litigation and corporate matters involving Latin America. He also served as a Trial Attorney in the Office of International Affairs within the DOJ's Criminal Division.
Country Contributor
Vahdet Talha Bıçak
Bıçak Law Firm - Chicago
Attorney Vahdet Talha Bıçak is a Turkish attorney focusing on international business law, cross-border disputes, international judicial cooperation, extradition-related matters, investment law, maritime law, and commercial litigation. He is part of the management team of Bıçak Law Firm, an Ankara-based full-service law firm representing domestic and international clients in complex cross-border legal matters.
He currently continues his academic and professional activities in Chicago, United States, where he has further expanded his comparative and international legal expertise. His international exposure and practical experience enable him to work effectively on matters involving multi-jurisdictional disputes, international cooperation mechanisms, and transnational legal risks.
Attorney Bıçak graduated from Bilkent University Faculty of Law in 2018 with advanced English legal training. He also pursued postgraduate studies in international trade and corporate law. During his legal education, he served as President of ELSA (European Law Students’ Association), one of Europe’s largest law student organizations, where he organized and coordinated numerous international legal projects and conferences.
His legal practice includes advising multinational corporations, foreign investors, embassies, and international commercial actors on Turkish and international legal matters. He has experience in international arbitration, cross-border investment disputes, international trade, maritime disputes, compliance, regulatory matters, and international commercial litigation. Attorney Bıçak has also been involved in matters relating to international criminal cooperation, comparative law, and extradition-related legal issues. His growing interest in extradition law, European Arrest Warrant practice, INTERPOL-related matters, and international judicial cooperation has led him to contribute to comparative legal research and case-law analysis in this field.
He is fluent in Turkish and English.
His practice areas include extradition and international judicial cooperation, cross-border litigation and dispute resolution, international commercial law, maritime and transportation law, international investment law, arbitration and mediation, corporate and regulatory compliance, white-collar and financial crime-related matters, and INTERPOL-related international criminal cooperation matters.
Attorney Vahdet Talha Bıçak is a member of the Ankara Bar Association and previously served as President of ELSA Ankara. He currently continues his professional activities through Bıçak Law Firm while further developing his international legal practice in the United States.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving United States

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →