author: Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Blackmun, Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    LALLI v. LALLI, ADMINISTRATRIX, et al.
    No. 77-1115.
    Argued October 4, 1978
    Decided December 11, 1978

      Powell, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Burger, C. J., and Stewart, J., joined. Stewart, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 276. Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 276. Rehnquist, J., filed a statement concurring in the judgment, post, p. 276. Brennan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which White, Marshall, and Stevens, JJ., joined, post, p. 277-.

      Leonard M. Henkin argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Morris R. Henkin.

      Irwin M. Strum, Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for appellee Lefkowitz. With him on the brief were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Neil S. Solon and Suzanne McOrattan, Assistant Attorneys General.

        John E. Kirklin, Kalman Finkel, and Jane Greengold Stevens filed a brief for the Legal Aid Society of New York City et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

   Mr. Justice Powell

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Stewart join.

This case presents a challenge to the constitutionality of § 4 — 1.2 of New York’s Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law, which requires illegitimate children who would inherit from their fathers by intestate succession to provide a particular form of proof of paternity. Legitimate children are not subject to the same requirement.

I

Appellant Robert Lalli claims to be the illegitimate son of Mario Lalli who died intestate on January 7, 1973, in the State of New York. Appellant’s mother, who died in 1968, never was married to Mario. After Mario’s widow, Rosa-mond Lalli, was appointed administratrix of her husband’s estate, appellant petitioned the Surrogate’s Court for West-chester County for a compulsory accounting, claiming that he and his sister Maureen Lalli were entitled to inherit from Mario as his children. Rosamond Lalli opposed the petition. She argued that even if Robert and Maureen were Mario’s children, they were not lawful distributees of the estate because they had failed to comply with § 4-1.2, which provides in part:

“An illegitimate child is the legitimate child of his father so that he and his issue inherit from his father if a court of competent jurisdiction has, during the lifetime of the father, made an order of filiation declaring paternity in a proceeding instituted during the pregnancy of the mother or within two years from the birth of the child.”

Appellant conceded that he had not obtained an order of filiation during his putative father’s lifetime. He contended, however, that § 4M.2, by imposing this requirement, discriminated against him on the basis of his illegitimate birth in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant tendered certain evidence of his relationship with Mario Lalli, including a notarized document in which Lalli, in consenting to appellant’s marriage, referred to him as "my son,” and several affidavits by persons who stated that Lalli had acknowledged openly and often that Robert and Maureen were his children.

The Surrogate’s Court noted that § 4-1.2 had previously, and unsuccessfully, been attacked under the Equal Protection Clause. After reviewing recent decisions of this Court concerning discrimination against illegitimate children, particularly Labine v. Vincent, 401 U. S. 532 (1971), and three New York decisions affirming the constitutionality of the statute, In re Belton, 70 Misc. 2d 814, 335 N. Y. S. 2d 177 (Surr. Ct. 1972); In re Hendrix, 68 Misc. 2d 439, 444, 326 N. Y. S. 2d 646, 652 (Surr. Ct. 1971); In re Crawford, 64 Misc. 2d 758, 762-763, 315 N. Y. S. 2d 890, 895 (Surr. Ct. 1970), the court ruled that appellant was properly excluded as a distributee of Lalli’s estate and therefore lacked status to petition for a compulsory accounting.

On direct appeal the New York Court of Appeals affirmed. In re Lalli, 38 N. Y. 2d 77, 340 N. E. 2d 721 (1975). It understood Labine to require the State to show no more than that “there is a rational basis for the means chosen by the Legislature for the accomplishment of a permissible State objective.” 38 N. Y. 2d, at 81, 340 N. E. 2d, at 723. After discussing the problems of proof peculiar to establishing paternity, as opposed to maternity, the court concluded that the State was constitutionally entitled to require a judicial decree during the father’s lifetime as the exclusive form of proof of paternity.

Appellant appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision to this Court. While that case'- was pending here, we decided Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 (1977). Because the issues in these two cases were similar in some respects, we vacated and remanded to permit further consideration in light of Trimble. Lalli v. Lalli, 431 U. S. 911 (1977).

On remand, the New York Court of Appeals, with two judges dissenting, adhered to its former disposition. In re Lalli, 43 N. Y. 2d 65, 371 N. E. 2d 481 (1977). It acknowledged that Trimble contemplated a standard of judicial review demanding more than “a mere finding of some remote rational relationship between the statute and a legitimate State purpose,” 43 N. Y. 2d, at 67, 371 N. E. 2d, at 482, though less than strictest scrutiny. Finding § 4^1.2 to be “significantly and determinatively different” from the statute overturned in Trimble, the court ruled that the New York law was sufficiently related to the State’s interest in “ 'the orderly settlement of estates and the dependability of titles to property passing under intestacy laws,’ ” 43 N. Y. 2d, at 67, 69-70, 371 N. E. 2d, at 482-483, quoting Trimble, supra, at 771, to meet the requirements of equal protection.

Appellant again sought review here, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 435 TJ. S. 921 (1978). We now affirm.

II

We begin our analysis with Trimble. At issue in that case was the constitutionality of an Illinois statute providing that a child born out of wedlock could inherit from his intestate father only if the father had “acknowledged” the child and the child had been legitimated by the intermarriage of the parents. The appellant in Trimble was a child born out of wedlock whose father had neither acknowledged her nor married her mother. He had, however, been found to be her father in a judicial decree ordering him to contribute to her support. When the father died intestate, the child was excluded as a distributee because the statutory requirements for inheritance had not been met.

We concluded that the Illinois statute discriminated against illegitimate children in a manner prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. Although, as decided in Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 506 (1976), and reaffirmed in Trimble, supra, at 767, classifications based on illegitimacy are not subject to “strict scrutiny,” they nevertheless are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment if they are not substantially related to permissible state interests. Upon examination, we found that the Illinois law failed that test.

Two state interests were proposed which the statute was said to foster: the encouragement of legitimate family relationships and the maintenance of an accurate and efficient method of disposing of an intestate decedent’s property. Granting that the State was appropriately concerned with the integrity of the family unit, we viewed the statute as bearing “only the most attenuated relationship to the asserted goal.” Trimble, supra, at 768. We again rejected the argument that “persons will shun illicit relations because the offspring may not one day reap the benefits” that would accrue to them were they legitimate. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 173 (1972). The statute therefore was not defensible as an incentive to enter legitimate family relationships.

Illinois’ interest in safeguarding the orderly disposition of property at death was more relevant to the statutory classification. We recognized that devising “an appropriate legal framework” in the furtherance of that interest “is a matter particularly within the competence of the individual States.” Trimble, supra, at 771. An important aspect of that framework is a response to the often difficult problem of proving the paternity of illegitimate children and the related danger of spurious claims against intestate estates. See infra, at 270-271. These difficulties, we said, “might justify a more demanding standard for illegitimate children claiming under their fathers’ estates than that required either for illegitimate children claiming under their mothers’ estates or for legitimate children generally.” Trimble, supra, at 770.

The Illinois statute, however, was constitutionally flawed because, by insisting upon not only an acknowledgment by the father, but also the marriage of the parents, it excluded “at least some significant categories of illegitimate children of intestate men [whose] inheritance rights can be recognized without jeopardizing the orderly settlement of estates or the dependability of titles to property passing under intestacy laws.” Id., at 771. We concluded that the Equal Protection Clause required that a statute placing exceptional burdens on illegitimate children in the furtherance of proper state objectives must be more “ 'carefully tuned to alternative considerations/ ” id., at 772, quoting Mathews v. Lucas, mpra, at 513, than was true of the broad disqualification in the Illinois law.

Ill

The New York statute, enacted in 1965, was intended to soften the rigors of previous law which permitted illegitimate children to inherit only from their mothers. See infra, at 269. By lifting the absolute bar to paternal inheritance, § 4-1.2 tended to achieve its desired effect. As in Trimble, however, the question before us is whether the remaining statutory obstacles to inheritance by illegitimate children can be squared with the Equal Protection Clause.

A

At the outset we observe that § 4-1.2 is different in important respects from the statutory provision overturned in Trimble. The Illinois statute required, in addition to the father’s acknowledgment of paternity, the legitimation of the child through the intermarriage of the parents as an absolute precondition to inheritance. This combination of requirements eliminated “the possibility of a middle ground between the extremes of complete exclusion and case-by-case determination of paternity.” Trimble, 430 U. S., at 770-771. As illustrated by the facts in Trimble, even a judicial declaration of paternity was insufficient to permit inheritance.

Under § 4 — 1.2, by contrast, the marital status of the parents is irrelevant. The single requirement at issue here is an evi-dentiary one — that the paternity of the father be declared in a judicial proceeding sometime before his death. The child need not have been legitimated in order to inherit from his father. Had the appellant in Trimble been governed by § 4-1.2, she would have been a distributee of her father’s estate. See In re Lalli, 43 N. Y. 2d, at 68 n. 2, 371 N. E. 2d, at 482 n. 2.

A related difference between the two provisions pertains to the state interests said to be served by them. The Illinois law was defended, in part, as a means of encouraging legitimate family relationships. No such justification has been offered in support of § 4-1.2. The Court of Appeals disclaimed that the purpose of the statute, “even in small part, was to discourage illegitimacy, to mold human conduct or to set societal norms.” In re Lalli, supra, at 70, 371 N. E. 2d, at 483. The absence in § 4-1.2 of any requirement that the parents intermarry or otherwise legitimate a child born out of wedlock and our review of the legislative history of the statute, infra, at 269-271, confirm this view.

Our inquiry, therefore, is focused narrowly. We are asked to decide whether the discrete procedural demands that § 4-1.2 places on illegitimate children bear an evident and substantial relation to the particular state interests this statute is designed to serve.

B

The primary state goal underlying the challenged aspects of § 4 — 1.2 is to provide for the just and orderly disposition of property at death. We long have recognized that this is an area with which the States have an interest of considerable magnitude. Trimble, supra, at 771; Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S., at 170; Labine v. Vincent, 401 U. S., at 538; see also Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U. S. 188, 193 (1938); Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493 (1850).

This interest is directly implicated in paternal inheritance by illegitimate children because of the peculiar problems of proof that are involved. Establishing maternity is seldom difficult. As one New York Surrogate’s Court has observed: “[T]he birth of the child is a recorded or registered event usually taking place in the presence of others. In most cases the child remains with the mother and for a time is necessarily reared by her. That the child is the child of a particular woman is rarely difficult to prove.” In re Ortiz, 60 Mise. 2d 756, 761, 303 N. Y. S. 2d 806, 812 (1969). Proof of paternity, by contrast, frequently is difficult when the father is not part of a formal family unit. “The putative father often goes his way unconscious of the birth of a child. Even if conscious, he is very often totally unconcerned because of the absence of any ties to the mother. Indeed the mother may not know who is responsible for her pregnancy.” Ibid, (emphasis in original); accord, In re Flemm, 85 Misc. 2d 855, 861, 381 N. Y. S. 2d 573, 576-577 (Surr. Ct. 1975); In re Hendrix, 68 Misc. 2d, at 443, 326 N. Y. S. 2d, at 650; cf. Trimble, supra, at 770, 772.

Thus, a number of problems arise that counsel against treating illegitimate children identically to all other heirs of an intestate father. These were the subject of a comprehensive study by the Temporary State Commission on the Modernization, Revision and Simplification of the Law of Estates. This group, known as the Bennett Commission, consisted of individuals experienced in the practical problems of estate administration. In re Flemm, supra, at 858, 381 N. Y. S. 2d, at 575. The Commission issued its report and recommendations to the legislature in 1965. See Fourth Report of the Temporary State Commission on the Modernization, Revision and Simplification of the Law of Estates, Legis. Doc. No. 19 (1965) (hereinafter Commission Report). The statute now codified as § 4^1.2 was included.

Although the overarching purpose of the proposed statute was “to alleviate the plight of the illegitimate child,” Commission Report 37, the Bennett Commission considered it necessary to impose the strictures of § 4-1.2 in order to mitigate serious difficulties in the administration of the estates of both testate and intestate decedents. The Commission's perception of some of these difficulties was described by Surrogate Sobel, a member of “the busiest [surrogate’s] court in the State measured by the number of intestate estates which traffic daily through this court,” In re Flemm, supra, at 857, 381 N. Y. S. 2d, at 574, and a participant in some of the Commission’s deliberations:

“An illegitimate, if made an unconditional distributee in intestacy, must be served with process in the estate of his parent or if he is a distributee in the estate of the kindred of a parent. . . . And, in probating the will of his parent (though not named a beneficiary) or in probating the will of any person who makes a class disposition to ‘issue’ of such parent, the illegitimate must be served with process. . . . How does one cite and serve an illegitimate of whose existence neither family nor personal representative may be aware? And of greatest concern, how achieve finality of decree in any estate when there always exists the possibility however remote of a secret illegitimate lurking in the buried past of a parent or an ancestor of a class of beneficiaries? Finality in decree is essential in the Surrogates’ Courts since title to real property passes under such decree. Our procedural statutes and the Due Process Clause mandate notice and opportunity to be heard to all necessary parties. Given the right to intestate succession, all illegitimates must be served with process. This would be no real problem with respect to those few estates where there are ‘known’ illegitimates. But it presents an almost insuperable burden as regards ‘unknown’ illegitimates. The point made in the [Bennett] commission discussions was that instead of affecting only a few estates, procedural problems would be created for many — some members suggested a majority — of estates.” 85 Misc. 2d, at 859, 381 N. Y. S. 2d, at 575-576.

Cf. In re Leventritt, 92 Misc. 2d 598, 601-602, 400 N. Y. S. 2d 298, 300-301 (Surr. Ct. 1977).

Even where an individual claiming to be the illegitimate child of a deceased man makes himself known, the difficulties facing an estate are likely to persist. Because of the particular problems of proof, spurious claims may be difficult to expose. The Bennett Commission therefore sought to protect “innocent adults and those rightfully interested in their estates from fraudulent claims of heirship and harassing litigation instituted by those seeking to establish themselves as illegitimate heirs.” Commission Report 265.

C

As the State’s interests are substantial, we now consider the means adopted by New York to further these interests. In order to avoid the problems described above, the Commission recommended a requirement designed to ensure the accurate resolution of claims of paternity and to minimize the potential for disruption of estate administration. Accuracy is enhanced by placing paternity disputes in a judicial forum during the lifetime of the father. As the New York Court of Appeals observed in its first opinion in this case, the “availability [of the putative father] should be a substantial factor contributing to the reliability of the fact-finding process.” In re Lalli, 38 N. Y. 2d, at 82, 340 N. E. 2d, at 724. In addition, requiring that the order be issued during the father’s lifetime permits a man to defend his reputation against “unjust accusations in paternity claims,” which was a secondary purpose of § 4 1,2. Commission Report 266.

The administration of an estate will be facilitated, and the possibility of delay and uncertainty minimized, where the entitlement of an illegitimate child to notice and participation is a matter of judicial record before the administration commences. Fraudulent assertions of paternity will be much less likely to succeed, or even to arise, where the proof is put before a court of law at a time when the putative father is available to respond, rather than first brought to light when the distribution of the assets of an estate is in the offing.

Appellant contends that § 4-1.2, like the statute at issue in Trimble, excludes "significant categories of illegitimate children” who could be allowed to inherit “without jeopardizing the orderly settlement” of their intestate fathers’ estates. Trimble, 430 U. S., at 771. He urges that those in his position — -“known” illegitimate children who, despite the absence of an order of filiation obtained during their fathers’ lifetimes, can present convincing proof of paternity — cannot rationally be denied inheritance as they pose none of the risks § 4-1.2 was intended to minimize.

We do not question that there will be some illegitimate children who would be able to establish their relationship to their deceased fathers without serious disruption of the administration of estates and that, as applied to such individuals, § 4-1.2 appears to operate unfairly. But few statutory classifications are entirely free from the criticism that they sometimes produce inequitable results. Our inquiry under the Equal Protection Clause does not focus on the abstract “fairness” of a state law, but on whether the statute’s relation to the state interests it is intended to promote is so tenuous that it lacks the rationality contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Illinois statute in Trimble was constitutionally unacceptable because it effected a total statutory disinheritance of children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents. The reach of the statute was far in excess of its justifiable purposes. Section 4-1.2 does not share this defect. Inheritance is barred only where there has been a failure to secure evidence of paternity during the father’s lifetime in the manner prescribed by the State. This is not a requirement that inevitably disqualifies an unnecessarily large number of children bom out of wedlock.

The New York courts have interpreted § 4-1.2 liberally and in such a way as to enhance its utility to both father and child without sacrificing its strength as a procedural prophylactic. For example, a father of illegitimate children who is willing to acknowledge paternity can waive his defenses in a paternity proceeding, e. g., In re Thomas, 87 Misc. 2d 1033, 387 N. Y. S. 2d 216 (Surr. Ct. 1976), or even institute such a proceeding himself. N. Y. Family Court Act § 522 (McKinney Supp. 1978); In re Flemm, 85 Misc. 2d, at 863, 381 N. Y. S. 2d, at 578. In addition, the courts have excused “technical” failures by illegitimate children to comply with the statute in order to prevent unnecessary injustice. E. g., In re Niles, 53 App. Div. 2d 983, 385 N. Y. S. 2d 876 (1976), appeal denied, 40 N. Y. 2d 809, 392 N. Y. S. 2d 1027 (1977) (filiation order may be signed nunc pro tunc to relate back to period prior to father’s death when court’s factual finding of paternity had been made); In re Kennedy, 89 Misc. 2d 551, 554, 392 N. Y. S. 2d 365, 367 (Surr. Ct. 1977) (judicial support order treated as “tantamount to an order of filiation,” even though paternity was not specifically declared therein).

As the history of § 4r-1.2 clearly illustrates, the New York Legislature desired to “grant to illegitimates in so far as practicable rights of inheritance on a par with those enjoyed by legitimate children,” Commission Report 265 (emphasis added), while protecting the important state interests we have described. Section 4-1.2 represents a carefully considered legislative judgment as to how this balance best could be achieved.

Even if, as Mr. Justice Brennan believes, § 4-1.2 could have been written somewhat more equitably, it is not the function of a court “to hypothesize independently on the desirability or feasibility of any possible alternative [s] ” to the statutory scheme formulated by New York. Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S., at 515. “These matters of practical judgment and empirical calculation are for [the State]. ... In the end, the precise accuracy of [the State’s] calculations is not a matter of specialized judicial competence; and we have no basis to question their detail beyond the evident consistency and substantiality.” Id., at 515-516.

We conclude that the requirement imposed by § 4-1.2 on illegitimate children who would inherit from their fathers is substantially related to the important state interests the statute is intended to promote. We therefore find no violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

For the reasons stated in his dissent in Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 777 (1977), Mr. Justice Rehnquist concurs in the judgment of affirmance.

Mr. Justice Stewart,

concurring.

It seems to me that Mr. Justice Powell’s opinion convincingly demonstrates the significant differences between the New York law at issue here and the Illinois law at issue in Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762. Therefore, I cannot agree with the view expressed in Mr. Justice Blackmun’s opinion concurring in the judgment that Trimble v. Gordon is now “a derelict,” or with the implication that in deciding the two cases the way it has this Court has failed to give authoritative guidance to the courts and legislatures of the several States.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the result the Court has reached and concur in its judgment. I also agree with much that has been said in the plurality opinion. My point of departure, of course, is at the plurality’s valiant struggle to distinguish, rather than overrule, Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 (1977), decided just the Term before last, and involving a small probate estate (an automobile worth approximately $2,500) and a sad and appealing fact situation. Four Members of the Court, like the Supreme Court of Illinois, found the case “constitutionally indistinguishable from Labine v. Vincent, 401 U. S. 532 (1971),” and were in dissent. Id., at 776, 777.

It seems to me that the Court today gratifyingly reverts to the principles set forth in Labine v. Vincent. What Mr. Justice Black said for the Court in Labine applies with equal force to the present case and, as four of us thought, to the Illinois situation with which Trimble was concerned.

I would overrule Trimble, but the Court refrains from doing so on the theory that the result in Trimble is justified because of the peculiarities of the Illinois Probate Act there under consideration. This, of course, is an explanation, but, for me, it is an unconvincing one. I therefore must regard Timble as a derelict, explainable only because of the overtones of its appealing facts, and offering little precedent for constitutional analysis of State intestate succession laws. If Trimble is not a derelict, the corresponding statutes of other States will be of questionable validity until this Court passes on them, one by one, as being on the Trimble side of the line or the Labine-Lalli side.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Stevens join, dissenting.

Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 (1977), declares that the state interest in the accurate and efficient determination of paternity can be adequately served by requiring the illegitimate child to offer into evidence a “formal acknowledgment of paternity.” Id., at' 772 n. 14. The New York statute is inconsistent with this command. Under the New York scheme, an illegitimate child may inherit intestate only if there has been a judicial finding of paternity during the lifetime of the father.

The present case illustrates the injustice of the departure from Trimble worked by today’s decision sustaining the New York rule. All interested parties concede that Robert Lalli is the son of Mario Lalli. Mario Lalli supported Robert during his son’s youth. Mario Lalli formally acknowledged Robert Lalli as his son. See In re Lalli, 38 N. Y. 2d 77, 79, 340 N. E. 2d 721, 722 (1975). Yet, for want of a judicial order of filiation entered during Mario’s lifetime, Robert Lalli is denied his intestate share of his father’s estate.

There is no reason to suppose that the injustice of the present case is aberrant. Indeed it is difficult to imagine an instance in which an illegitimate child, acknowledged and voluntarily supported by his father, would ever inherit intestate under the New York scheme. Social welfare agencies, busy as they are with errant fathers, are unlikely to bring paternity proceedings against fathers who support their children. Similarly, children who are acknowledged and supported by their fathers are unlikely to bring paternity proceedings against them. First, they are unlikely to see the need for such adversary proceedings. Second, even if aware of the rule requiring judicial filiation orders, they are likely to fear provoking disharmony by suing their fathers. For the same reasons, mothers of such illegitimates are unlikely to bring proceedings against the fathers. Finally, fathers who do not even bother to make out wills (and thus die intestate) are unlikely to take the time to bring formal filiation proceedings. Thus, as a practical matter, by requiring judicial filiation orders entered during the lifetime of the fathers, the New York statute makes it virtually impossible for acknowledged and freely supported illegitimate children to inherit intestate.

Two interests are said to justify this discrimination against illegitimates. First, it is argued, reliance upon mere formal public acknowledgments of paternity would open the door to fraudulent claims of paternity. I cannot accept this argument. I adhere to the view that when “a father has formally acknowledged his child . . . there is no possible difficulty of proof, and no opportunity for fraud or error. This purported interest '[in avoiding fraud] . . . can offer no justification for distinguishing between a formally acknowledged illegitimate child and a legitimate one.” Labine v. Vincent, 401 U. S. 532, 552 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

But even if my confidence in the accuracy of formal public acknowledgments of paternity were unfounded, New York has available less drastic means of screening out fraudulent claims of paternity. In addition to requiring formal acknowledgments of paternity, New York might require illegitimates to prove paternity by an elevated standard of proof, e. g., clear and convincing evidence, or even beyond a reasonable doubt. Certainly here, where there is no factual dispute as to the relationship between Robert and Mario Lalli, there is no justification for denying Robert Lalli his intestate share.

Second, it is argued, the New York statute protects estates from belated claims by unknown illegitimates. I find this justification even more tenuous than the first. Publication notice and a short limitations period in which claims against the estate could be filed could serve the asserted state interest as well as, if not better than, the present scheme. In any event, the fear that unknown illegitimates might assert belated claims hardly justifies cutting off the rights of known illegiti-mates such as Robert Lalli. I am still of the view that the state interest in the speedy and efficient determination of paternity “is completely served by public acknowledgment of parentage and simply does not apply to the case of acknowledged illegitimate children.” Id., at 558 n. 30 (Brennan, J., dissenting).

I see no reason to retreat from our decision in Trimble v. Gordon. The New York statute on review here, like the Illinois statute in Trimble, excludes “forms of proof which do not compromise the State [’s] interests.” Trimble v. Gordon, supra, at 772 n. 14. The statute thus discriminates against illegitimates through means not substantially related to the legitimate interests that the statute purports to promote. I would invalidate the statute.

       1965 N. Y. Laws, ch. 958, § 1. The statute was initially codified as N. Y. Decedent Est. Law § 83-a. In 1966 it was recodified without material change as N. Y. Est., Powers & Trusts Law § 4^1.2 (McKinney 1967). 1966 N. Y. Laws, ch. 952. Further nonsubstantive amendments were made the next year. 1967 N. Y. Laws, ch. 686, §§ 28, 29.

       Section 4-1.2 in its entirety provides:
      “(a) For the purposes of this article:
      “(1) An illegitimate child is the legitimate child of his mother so that he and his issue inherit from his mother and from his maternal kindred.
      “(2) An illegitimate child is the legitimate child of his father so that he and his issue inherit from his father if a court of competent jurisdiction has, during the lifetime of the father, made an order of filiation declaring paternity in a proceeding instituted during the pregnancy of the mother or within two years from the birth of the child.
      “(3) The existence of an agreement obligating the father to support the illegitimate child does not qualify such child or his issue to inherit from the father in the absence of an order of filiation made as prescribed by subparagraph (2).
      “(4) A motion for relief from an order of filiation may be made only by the father, and such motion must be made within one year from the entry of such order.
      “(b) If an illegitimate child dies, his surviving spouse, issue, mother, maternal kindred and father inherit and are entitled to letters of administration as if the decedent were legitimate, provided that the father may inherit or obtain such letters only if an order of filiation has been made in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (2).” N. Y. Est., Powers & Trusts Law § 4AL.2 (McKinney 1967).

       Appellant also claimed that § 4-1.2 was invalid under N. Y. Const., Art. 1, § 11. The New York Court of Appeals did not rule on this issue, nor do we. We also do not consider whether §4-1.2 unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex or whether the administratrix of Mario’s estate is required to account for her alleged failure to bring a wrongful-death action on behalf of appellant. The latter question was not considered by the Court of Appeals, and the former was raised for the first time by a brief amici curiae in this Court.

       On remand from this Court, the New York Attorney General was permitted to intervene as a defendant-appellee. He has filed a brief on the merits and argued the case in this Court. Appellee Rosamond Lalli did not present oral argument and has not filed a brief on the merits.

       Section 4r-l.2 requires not only that the order of filiation be made during the lifetime of the father, but that the proceeding in which it is sought be commenced “during the pregnancy of the mother or within two years from the birth of the child.” The New York Court of Appeals declined to rule on the constitutionality of the two-year limitation in both of its opinions in this case because appellant concededly had never commenced a paternity proceeding at all. Thus, if the rule that paternity be judicially declared during his father’s lifetime were upheld, appellant would lose for failure to comply with that requirement alone. If, on the other hand, appellant prevailed in his argument that his inheritance could not be conditioned on the existence of an order of filiation, the two-year limitation would become irrelevant since the paternity proceeding itself would be unnecessary. See In re Lalli, 43 N. Y. 2d 65, 68 n. 1, 371 N. E. 2d 481, 482 n. 1 (1977); In re Lalli, 38 N. Y. 2d 77, 80 n., 340 N. E. 2d 721, 723 n. (1975). As the New York Court of Appeals has not passed upon the constitutionality of the two-year limitation, that question is not before us. Our decision today therefore sustains §4-1.2 under the Equal Protection Clause only with respect to its requirement that a judicial order of filiation be issued during the lifetime of the father of an illegitimate child.

       The presence in this case of the State’s interest in the orderly disposition of a decedent’s property at death distinguishes it from others in which that justification for an illegitimacy-based classification was absent. E. g., Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U. S. 628 (1974); Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S. 535 (1973); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 170 (1972); Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 68 (1968).

       The Bennett Commission was created by the New York Legislature in 1961. It was instructed to recommend needed changes in certain areas of state law, including that pertaining to “the descent and distribution of property, and the practice and procedure relating thereto.” 1961 N. Y. Laws, ch. 731, § 1.

         In affirming the judgment below, we do not, of course, restrict a State’s freedom to require proof of paternity by means other than a judicial decree. Thus, a State may prescribe any formal method of proof, whether it be similar to that provided by § 4r-1.2 or some other regularized procedure that would assure the authenticity of the acknowledgment. As we noted in Trimble, 430 U. S., at 772 n. 14, such a procedure would be sufficient to satisfy the State’s interests. See also n. 11, infra.

       Appellant claims that in addition to discriminating between illegitimate and legitimate children, §4^1.2, in conjunction with N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law §24 (McKinney 1977), impermissibly discriminates between classes of illegitimate children. Section 24 provides that a child conceived out of wedlock is nevertheless legitimate if, before or after his birth, his parents marry, even if the marriage is void, illegal, or judicially annulled. Appellant argues that by classifying as “legitimate” children born out of wedlock whose parents later marry, New York has, with respect to these children, substituted marriage for § 4r-1.2’s requirement of proof of paternity. Thus, these “illegitimate” children escape the rigors of the rule unlike their unfortunate counterparts whose parents never marry.
      Under § 24, one claiming to be the legitimate child of a deceased man would have to prove not only his paternity but also his maternity and the fact of the marriage of his parents. These additional evidentiary requirements make it reasonable to accept less exacting proof of paternity and to treat such children as legitimate for inheritance purposes.

       In addition to making intestate succession possible, of course, a father is always free to provide for his illegitimate child by will. See In re Flemm, 85 Misc. 2d 855, 864, 381 N. Y. S. 2d 573, 579 (Surr. Ct. 1975).

       The dissent of Mr. Justice Brennan would reduce the opinion in Trimble v. Gordon, supra, to a simplistic holding that the Constitution requires a State, in a case of this kind, to recognize as sufficient any “formal acknowledgment of paternity.” This reading of Trimble is based on a single phrase lifted from a footnote. 430 U. S., at 772 n. 14. It ignores both the broad rationale of the Court’s opinion and the context in whiehthe note and the phrase relied upon appear. The principle that the footnote elaborates is that the States are free to recognize the problems arising from different forms of proof and to select those forms “carefully tailored to eliminate imprecise and unduly burdensome methods of establishing paternity.” Ibid. The New York Legislature, with the benefit of the Bennett Commission's study, exercised this judgment when it considered and rejected the possibility of accepting evidence of paternity less formal than a judicial order. Commission Report 266-267.
      The “formal acknowledgment” contemplated by Trimble is such as would minimize post-death litigation, i. e., a regularly prescribed, legally recognized method of acknowledging paternity. See n. 8, swpra. It is thus plain that footnote in Trimble does not sustain the dissenting opinion. Indeed, the document relied upon by the dissent is not an acknowledgment of paternity at all. It is a simple “Certificate of Consent” that apparently was required at the time by New York for the marriage of a minor. It consists of one sentence:
      “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I, who have hereto subscribed my name, do hereby consent that Robert Lalli who is my son and who is under the age of 21 years, shall be united in marriage to Janice Bivins by any minister of the gospel or other person authorized by law to solemnize marriages.” App. A-14.
      Mario Lalli’s signature to this document was acknowledged by a notary public, but the certificate contains no oath or affirmation as to the truth of its contents. The notary did no more than confirm the identity of Lalli. Because the certificate was executed for the purpose of giving consent to marry, not of proving biological paternity, the meaning of the words “my son” is ambiguous. One can readily imagine that had Robert Lalli’s half-brother, who was not Mario’s son but who took the surname Lalli and lived as a member of his household, sought permission to marry, Mario might also have referred to him as “my son” on a consent certificate.
      The important state interests of safeguarding the accurate and orderly disposition of property at death, emphasized in Tumble and reiterated in our opinion today, could be frustrated easily if there were a constitutional rule that any notarized but unsworn statement identifying an individual as a “child” must be accepted as adequate proof of paternity regardless of the context in which the statement was made.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    MASSACHUSETTS v. WHITE
    No. 77-1388.
    Argued November 28, 1978
    Decided December 11, 1978

      Barbara A. H. Smith, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, and Stephen R. Delinsky, Assistant Attorney General.

      Robert S. Cohen argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

        Fred E. Iribau, Wayne W. Schmidt, Robert Smith, and James P. Costello filed a brief for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., as amicus curiae urging reversal.

   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    HUNTER v. DEAN, SHERIFF
    No. 77-6248.
    Argued October 11, 1978
    Decided December 11, 1978

      James G. Bonner, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was C. Michael Abbott.

      G. Stephen Parker argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, Robert S. Stubbs II, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Don A. Langham, First Assistant Attorney General, John C. Walden, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Assistant Attorney General.
   Per Curiam.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidéntly granted.


author: Me. Chief Justice Buegek Mr. Justice Blackmun,

text:
    MICHIGAN v. DORAN
    No. 77-1202.
    Argued October 4, 1978
    Decided December 18, 1978

      Burger, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stewart, White, Powell, Rehnquist, and SteveNS, JJ., joined. BlackmuN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which BreNNAN and Marshall, JJ., joined, past, p. 290.

      Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General of Michigan, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, and John A. Wilson and Jann Ryan Baugh, Assistant Attorneys General.

      Kathleen M. Cummins argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Me. Chief Justice Buegek

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to determine whether the courts of an asylum state may nullify the executive grant of extradition on the ground that the demanding state failed to show a factual basis for its charge supported by probable cause. 435 U. S. 967 (1978).

(1)

On December 18, 1975, Doran was arrested in Michigan and charged with receiving and concealing stolen property. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.535 (1970). The charge rested on Doran’s possession of a stolen truck bearing California license plates, which he had driven from Arizona. Michigan notified Arizona authorities of Doran’s arrest and sent them a photograph of Doran taken on the day of his arrest. On January 7, 1976, a sworn complaint was filed with an Arizona Justice of the Peace, charging Doran with the theft of the described motor vehicle, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-661 to 13-663, 13-672 (A) (Supp. 1957-1977), or, alternatively, with theft by embezzlement, § 13-682 (Supp. 1957-1977). The Justice of the Peace issued an arrest warrant which stated that she had found “reasonable cause to believe that such offense(s) were committed and that [Doran] committed them . . . .”

While the Michigan charges were pending, Doran was arraigned in Michigan on January 12 as a fugitive. A magistrate extended Doran’s detention as a fugitive to provide time to receive the expected request for extradition from Arizona. On February 11 the Governor of Arizona issued a requisition for extradition. Attached to the requisition were the arrest warrant, two supporting affidavits, and the original complaint on which the charge was based. The Governor of Michigan issued a warrant for Doran’s arrest and his extradition was ordered.

Doran was arraigned on the Michigan warrant on March 29. He then petitioned the arraigning court for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the extradition warrant was invalid because it did not comply with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Mich Comp. Laws §§ 780.1 to 780.31 (1970). Cf. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-1301 to 13-1328 (Supp. 1957-1977). The court twice denied a writ of habeas corpus; the Michigan Court of Appeals denied an application for leave to appeal and dismissed Doran’s complaint for habeas corpus. People v. Doran, Nos. 28507 (May 4, 1976) and 30516 (Nov. 22, 1976). The Michigan Supreme Court, however, granted leave to appeal the denial of the first habeas corpus petition. People v. Doran, 397 Mich. 886 (1976). On review, the court reversed the trial court's order and mandated Doran’s immediate release. In re Doran, 401 Mich. 235, 258 N. W. 2d 406, rehearing denied, 402 Mich. 951 (1977).

(2)

The Michigan Supreme Court reasoned that because a significant impairment of liberty occurred whenever a person was arrested in one state and extradited to another that impairment must be preceded by a showing of probable cause to believe that the fugitive had committed a crime. In addition to relying on Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975), the court found support for its conclusion in § 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.3 (1970), which requires that an affidavit must “substantially charge” the fugitive with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. That court construed “substantially charge” to mean there must be a showing of probable cause.

The essence of the holding of the Supreme Court of Michigan is that the courts of an asylum state may review the action of the governor and in that process re-examine the factual basis for the finding of probable cause which accompanies the requisition from the demanding state. The court concluded:

“In the case at bar, there is no indictment or document reflecting a prior judicial determination of probable cause. The Arizona complaint and arrest warrant are both phrased in conclusory language which simply mirrors the language of the pertinent Arizona statutes. More importantly, the two supporting affidavits fail to set out facts which could justify a Fourth Amendment finding of probable cause for charging [Doran] with a crime.” 401 Mich., at 240-242, 258 N. W. 2d, at 408-409 (footnote omitted).

The Michigan court assumed that arrest warrants could be issued in Arizona without a preliminary showing of probable cause since this was said to happen often in Michigan. In that court’s view, neither the complaint which generated the Arizona charge, the affidavits in support of the Arizona arrest warrant, nor the recitals of the Arizona judicial officer set out sufficient facts to show probable cause. We disagree and we reverse.

(3)

We turn to the question of the power of the courts of an asylum state to review the finding of probable cause made by a judicial officer in the demanding state. Article IV, § 2, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution on the subject of extradition is clear and explicit:

“A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.”

To implement this provision of the Constitution, see Innes v. Tobin, 240 U. S. 127, 131 (1916); Trigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 639, 617 (1842), Congress has provided:

“Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear.” 18 U. S. C. § 3182 (emphasis added).

The Extradition Clause was intended to enable each state to bring offenders to trial as swiftly as possible in the state where the alleged offense was committed. Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 IT. S. 128, 132-133 (1917); Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222, 227 (1906). The purpose of the Clause was to preclude any state from becoming a sanctuary for fugitives from justice of another state and thus “balkanize” the administration of criminal justice among the several states. It articulated, in mandatory language, the concepts of comity and full faith and credit, found in the immediately preceding clause of Art. IV. The Extradition Clause, like the Commerce Clause, served important national objectives of a newly developing country striving to foster national unity. Compare Biddinger, supra, with McLeod v. Dilworth Co., 322 U. S. 327, 330 (1944). In the administration of justice, no less than in trade and commerce, national unity was thought to be served by de-emphasizing state lines for certain purposes, without impinging on essential state autonomy.

Interstate extradition was intended to be a summary and mandatory executive proceeding derived from the language of Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution. Biddinger, supra, at 132; In re Strauss, 197 U. S. 324, 332 (1905); R. Hurd, A Treatise on the Right of Personal Liberty and the Writ of Habeas Corpus 598 (1858). The Clause never contemplated that the asylum state was to conduct the kind of preliminary inquiry traditionally intervening between the initial arrest and trial.

Near the turn of the century this Court, after acknowledging the possibility that persons may give false information to the police or prosecutors and that a prosecuting attorney may act “either wantonly or ignorantly,” concluded:

“While courts will always endeavor to see that no such attempted wrong is successful, on the other hand, care must be taken that the process of extradition be not so burdened as to make it practically valueless. It is but one step in securing the presence of the defendant in the court in which he may be tried, and in no manner determines the question of guilt.” In re Strauss, supra, at 332-333.

Whatever the scope of discretion vested in the governor of an asylum state, cf. Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 107 (1861), the courts of an asylum state are bound by Art. IV, § 2, cf. Compton v. Alabama, 214 U. S. 1, 8 (1909), by § 3182, and, where adopted, by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. A governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. Cf. Bassing v. Cady, 208 U. S. 386, 392 (1908). Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. These are historic facts readily verifiable.

Under Arizona law, felony prosecutions may be commenced either by an indictment or by filing a complaint before a judicial officer. Ariz. Rule Crim. Proc. 2.2 (1973). The magistrate or justice of the peace before whom the criminal charge is filed must issue an arrest warrant if it is determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that an offense has been committed. The inquiry the judicial officer is required to make is directed at the traditional determination of reasonable grounds or probable cause. Erdman v. Superior Court, 102 Ariz. 524, 433 P. 2d 972 (1967); State v. Currier, 86 Ariz. 394, 347 P. 2d 29 (1959). Here the Justice of the Peace in Arizona, having the complaint at hand, issued the warrant for Doran’s arrest after concluding that there was “reasonable cause to believe that such offense(s) were committed and that the accused committed them.”

The Supreme Court of Michigan, however, held that the conclusion was deficient because it did not recite the factual basis for the determination made by the Arizona judicial officer. This holding finds no support in the record read in the light of the mandatory provisions of Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and Arizona law. Moreover it overlooks the “conclusory language” in which criminal charges are ordinarily cast whether by indictment or otherwise. Cf. Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642, 651 (1885).

Under Art. IV, § 2, the courts of the asylum state are bound to accept the demanding state’s judicial determination since the proceedings of the demanding state are clothed with the traditional presumption of regularity. In short, when a neutral judicial officer of the demanding state has determined that probable cause exists, the courts of the asylum state are without power to review the determination. Section 2, cl. 2, of Art. IV, its companion clause in § 1, and established principles of comity merge to support this conclusion. To allow plenary review in the asylum state of issues that can be fully litigated in the charging state would defeat the plain purposes of the summary and mandatory procedures authorized by Art. IV, § 2. See, e. g., Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U. S. 86, 90 (1952); Marbles v. Creecy, 215 U. S. 63, 69-70 (1909); Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 404-405 (1908).

We hold that once the governor of the asylum state has acted on a requisition for extradition based on the demanding state’s judicial determination that probable cause existed, no further judicial inquiry may be had on that issue in the asylum state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall join, concurring in the result.

I am not willing, as the Court appears to me to be, to bypass so readily, and almost to ignore, the presence and significance of the Fourth Amendment in the extradition context. That Amendment is not mentioned at all in the discussion portion (part (3)) of the Court’s opinion. I therefore must assume that in the Court’s view the Amendment is of little or no consequence in determining what type of habeas corpus review may be had in the asylum State. In contrast to the Court’s apparent position, I feel that it is necessary to face the Fourth Amendment issue squarely in order to arrive at a principled result in this case.

I

The petition for certiorari in this case presented one, and only one, issue:

“Did the Michigan Supreme Court misconstrue the Fourth Amendment and the Extradition clause of the United States Constitution when it held that a fugitive may challenge a demanding state’s extradition documents on the basis of lack of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, in a collateral proceeding in the asylum state’s courts?” Pet. for Cert. 2.

On this question the state and federal courts are deeply divided. Despite the obvious importance of the issue, the Court refuses the opportunity afforded by this case to clarify the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in interstate extradition. Instead, the Court avoids the question on which certiorari was granted by holding that, even if the Fourth Amendment does apply to interstate extradition, its requirements, in this case, were satisfied. Ante, at 285 n. 3. This convenient assumption, in my view, perpetuates confusion in an area where clarification and uniformity are urgently needed.

If, on the facts of this case, there could be no question whatsoever that the Fourth Amendment was satisfied, then one would have to agree that it would be unnecessary, strictly speaking, for the Court to decide whether the Amendment applies. But one really cannot know whether the Fourth Amendment was satisfied without examining and determining the procedural protections the Amendment provides and without considering the Fourth Amendment interests at stake, and then weighing those interests against the ones furthered by the Extradition Clause, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution.

I would hold that the Fourth Amendment applies in the extradition context, and I would use the opportunity this case affords to articulate, for the guidance of state courts, the proper accommodation between the Fourth Amendment and the Extradition Clause.

II

The Court’s analysis, I fear, rests on cases that preceded the application of Fourth Amendment standards to state criminal proceedings. The basic assumption of these early cases — that the Constitution left the States with virtually complete control over their procedures — -has not been tenable since the Court in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27-28 (1949), held that the Fourth Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and in subsequent cases held that state criminal procedures must conform to the same Fourth Amendment standards that apply to federal proceedings. See, e. g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23 (1963); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89 (1964). Whatever may have been the law of extradition as propounded by this Court “[n]ear the turn of the century,” ante, at 288, the Extradition Clause and its implementing statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3182, no longer may be considered in isolation from the Fourth Amendment.

The Court also relies on what it describes as the “clear and explicit” language of the Extradition Clause. Ante, at 286. But the language of the Fourth Amendment is equally “clear and explicit”:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing . . . the persons ... to be seized.”

The words of the Amendment provide no grounds for a distinction between “seizures” of persons for extradition and seizures of persons for any other purpose. Neither do they distinguish between an extradition warrant and the usual arrest warrant. Indeed, the “security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police — which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment,” Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S., at 27, applies with undiminished force to the intrusion that occurs in the process of extradition.

The requirements of the Fourth Amendment in the context of pretrial arrest and detention were spelled out in Oerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975). The Amendment, it was said, “requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest.” Id., at 114. The Court there stated that extended confinement before trial “may imperil the suspect’s job, interrupt his source of income, and impair his family relationships . . . . When the stakes are this high, the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate is essential if the Fourth Amendment is to furnish meaningful protection from unfounded interference with liberty.” Ibid.

The extradition process involves an “extended restraint of liberty following arrest” even more severe than that accompanying detention within a single State. Extradition involves, at a minimum, administrative processing in both the asylum State and the demanding State, and forced transportation in between. It surely is a “significant restraint on liberty.” For me, therefore, the Amendment’s language and the holding in Oerstein mean that, even in the extradition context, where the demanding State’s “charge” rests upon something less than an indictment, there must be a determination of probable cause by a detached and neutral magistrate, and that the asylum State need not grant extradition unless that determination has been made. The demanding State, of course, has the burden of so demonstrating.

Having said this, however, I recognize that it is the purpose of the Extradition Clause to secure the prompt rendition of interstate fugitives with a minimum of friction between States. See Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222, 227-228 (1906). The Constitution’s concern for efficiency and comity in extradition could be seriously jeopardized if the courts of the asylum State could examine the factual basis for a probable-cause determination already made by a magistrate in the demanding State. I therefore would not go so far as to permit the asylum State to delve into the niceties of the underpinnings of the demanding State’s probable-cause determination, as the demanding State will be obliged to do if probable cause is made an issue when the fugitive is returned to that State. It is enough if the papers submitted by the demanding State in support of its request for extradition facially show that a neutral magistrate has made a finding of probable cause. If they do, it is not the province of the courts of the asylum State, subject to extended appellate review, to probe the factual sufficiency of that finding. That probe may be conducted in due course in the demanding State.

Ill

Here the Arizona papers were facially sufficient. An arrest warrant had been issued by an Arizona Justice of the Peace, and that warrant stated specifically: “I have found reasonable cause to believe that such offense (s) were committed and that the accused [Doran] committed them.” App. 26a. I equate that recital of “reasonable cause” with the “probable cause” of Fourth Amendment parlance. To be sure, the phraseology is conclusory, but this still was a judicial determination of probable cause, and that, for me, is sufficient for Extradition Clause-Fourth Amendment purposes. The asylum State should be allowed to scrutinize the charging documents only to ascertain that a detached and neutral magistrate made a determination of probable cause. That was the case here. Any further review would create potential for frustration and obstruction of the process established by the Extradition Clause.

I therefore concur only in the result.

       Michigan dismissed its criminal charges against Doran on February 9 in deference to the extradition on charges pending in Arizona.

       At 'the time of his release, Doran had been in custody for 18 months in Michigan pending the extradition proceedings and his challenge to them. Doran’s counsel moved to dismiss certiorari in this Court on the ground of mootness due to her inability to locate him in Michigan. That motion is denied. Cf. Eagles v. United States ex rel. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304, 306-308 (1946).

       In Gerstein we held that “the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest.” 420 U. S., at 114. Because Arizona provided a judicial determination of probable cause for the arrest warrant, we need not decide whether the criminal charge on which extradition is requested must recite that it was based on a finding of probable cause.

       These terms appear to derive from language in Munsey v. Clough, 196 U. S. 364, 373 (1905): “If it appear that the indictment substantially charges an offense for which the person may be returned to the State for trial, it is enough for this [extradition] proceeding.” See also Pearce v. Texas, 155 U. S. 311, 313 (1894); Uniform Criminal Extradition Act §3, 11 U. L. A. 93 (1974).

       See, e. g., Kirkland, v. Preston, 128 U. S. App. D. C. 148, 385 F. 2d 670 (1967).

       Section 3182 remains virtually unchanged from the original version enacted in 1793. 1 Stat. 302. See also Rev. Stat. § 5278; 18 U. S. C. §662 (1940 ed.).

       The Arizona justice of the peace may, if necessary, subpoena additional witnesses before issuing a warrant. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22-311 (1975); Ariz. Rules Crim. Proc. 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 (1973 and Supp. 1978-1979). The Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure require that on a finding of probable cause the judicial officer shall issue a warrant reciting the information on which it is based. Rules 3.1 and 3.2 (1973).

       The question was rephrased, without change in substance, in petitioner’s brief on the merits. Brief for Petitioner 2.
      The respondent submitted a counterstatement of the question:
      “The Michigan Supreme Court did not misconstrue the Fourth Amendment and the Extradition Clause by holding that the scope of a habeas corpus challenge to extradition legitimately encompasses a scrutiny by the asylum jurisdiction of the charging documents supporting the demanding State’s requisition to determine whether such documents facially reflect probable cause and hence substantially charge the accused fugitive with crime.” Brief for Respondent 1-2.
      See also Brief in Opposition 1.
      It is obvious that each side regards the Fourth Amendment to be of significance.

       One of the leading cases to the effect that the Fourth Amendment requires the asylum State to determine whether a demand for extradition is supported by probable cause is Kirkland v. Preston, 128 U. S. App. D. C. 148, 385 F. 2d 670 (1967). A number of other courts have followed the general line of analysis set out in Kirkland. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Orano v. Anderson, 446 F. 2d 272 (CA3 1971); Montague v. Smedley, 557 P. 2d 774 (Alaska 1976); Pippin v. Leach, 188 Colo. 385, 534 P. 2d 1193 (1975); Brode v. Power, 31 Conn. Supp. 411, 332 A. 2d 376 (Super. Ct. 1974); Tucker v. Virginia, 308 A. 2d 783 (D. C. App. 1973); Clement v. Cox, 118 N. H. 246, 385 A. 2d 841 (1978); People ex rel. Cooper v. Lombard, 45 App. Div. 2d 928, 357 N. Y. S. 2d 323 (1974); Locke v. Burns, — W. Va.-, 238,Si E. 2d 536 (1977). On the other hand, some courts have rejected Kirkland’s accommodation of the Fourth Amendment and the Extradition Clause. See, e. g., In re Golden, 65 Cal. App. 3d 789, 135 Cal. Rptr. 512, app. dismissed and cert. denied sub nom. Golden v. California, 434 U. S. 805 (1977); People ex rel. Kubala v. Woods, 52 Ill. 2d 48, 284 N. E. 2d 286 (1972); McEwen v. State, 224 So. 2d 206 (Miss. 1969); Ault v. Purcell, 16 Ore. App. 664, 519 P. 2d 1285, cert. denied, 419 U. S. 858 (1974); Commonwealth ex rel. Marshall v. Gedney, 237 Pa. Super. 372, 352 A. 2d 528 (1975); Salvail v. Sharkey, 108 R. I. 63, 271 A. 2d 814 (1970). The cases on both sides exhibit a variety of theories and positions. Further, at least in Massachusetts and South Dakota, federal courts in habeas proceedings in effect have nullified decisions by state supreme courts that refused to apply the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to extradition. Compare Ierardi v. Gunter, 528 F. 2d 929 (CA1 1976), with In re Ierardi, 366 Mass. 640, 321 N. E. 2d 921 (1975), and Wellington v. South Dakota, 413 F. Supp. 151 (SD 1976), with Wellington v. State, 90 S. D. 153, 238 N. W. 2d 499 (1976).

       As I understand today’s ruling, the Court does not decide whether and to what extent the Fourth Amendment applies in extradition proceedings. Instead, the Court for present purposes is willing to assume that the Amendment applies to proceedings governed by the Extradition Clause and that it requires, at a minimum, a judicial determination of probable cause prior to any significant restraint on liberty. The Court then holds that the Extradition Clause prohibits the courts of the asylum State from reviewing the adequacy of a properly certified judicial determination of probable cause made in the demanding State. Further, the Court holds that the Supreme Court of Michigan erred in finding that no such determination took place in this case. The documents certified by the Governor of Arizona and approved by the Governor of Michigan indicated on their face that such a finding had been made, and the Michigan court’s conclusion to the contrary was based on its impression of procedures followed in Michigan and its own evaluation of the adequacy of the supporting affidavits.
      I nevertheless find the implications of certain passages in the Court’s opinion to be troublesome. The Court says, ante, at 290, that “once the governor of the asylum state has acted on a requisition for extradition based on the demanding state’s judicial determination that probable cause existed, no further judicial inquiry may be had on that issue in the asylum state.” This seems to imply that it is only the governor who is to review the charging papers, and that the habeas court has no role whatsoever in the matter. A like implication appears in the Court’s language, ibid., that “the courts of the asylum state are without power to review the determination.” On the other hand, in an 'earlier passage, ante, at 289, the Court says that the grant of extradition by the governor of an asylum State “is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met.” This, for me, is a suggestion that the governor’s review and determination effect only a rebuttable presumption that there has been a judicial determination in the demanding State. I also note that some passages in the Court’s opinion seem to disregard the proposition that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require that sister States enforce a foreign penal judgment.” Nelson v. George, 399 U. S. 224, 229 (1970). See ante, at 287-288, and 290.
      These seemingly inconsistent implications indicate that one cannot determine in a principled way what procedures are appropriate in the asylum State without first giving consideration to the Fourth Amendment values that are at stake.

         The Court made this assumption explicit in In re Strauss, 197 U. S. 324, 331 (1905), a case quoted by the Court, ante, at 288: “Under the Constitution each State was left with full control over its criminal procedure.”

       It is of interest to note that when a potential conflict between the Extradition Clause and some other constitutional provision has been recognized, chis Court long ago suggested that the Clause be interpreted so as to avoid the conflict. In Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 (1861), Mr. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the Court, discussed the Extradition Clause’s requirement that a person be “charged” with “Treason, Felony, or other Crime.” He indicated that the general term “charged” should be construed in accord with accepted constitutional principles governing the roles of the judicial and executive departments. He concluded that the governor of the demanding State was not authorized by the Extradition Clause to demand the return of a fugitive unless the fugitive “was charged in the regular course of judicial proceedings.” Id., at 104.

         The Court noted that it has held that “an indictment, ‘fair upon its face,’ and returned by a ‘properly constituted grand jury,’ conclusively determines the existence of probable cause and requires issuance of an arrest warrant without further inquiry. Ex parte United States, 287 U. S. 241, 250 (1932).” 420 U. S., at 117 n. 19.

       Other types of review in the asylum State’s courts entail less potential for friction and delay. As the Court indicates, ante, at 289, 18 U. S. C. § 3182 itself contemplates that the courts of the asylum State may make inquiry into “historic facts readily verifiable,” such as the identity of the fugitive and the existence of a “charge.” There is nothing to indicate that this type of routine and basic inquiry has led to frustration of the extradition process.

       This limitation on the scope of habeas review in the asylum State’s courts could perhaps be said to be a limit on the alleged fugitive’s Fourth Amendment' rights, since habeas review to determine the existence of probable cause justifying detention is not usually so restricted. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S., at 115. Nevertheless, when the documents certified and approved by two governors indicate on their face that a judicial determination of probable cause has been made in the demanding State, this compromise, if it be one, limiting the scope of review in the courts of the asylum State, seems a proper accommodation of the constitutional provisions. The nature of habeas relief in the courts of the demanding State and in the federal courts is not at issue in this case. Nor does this case involve the scope of habeas relief in circumstances in which the terms of the Extradition Clause do not apply.

       It seems obvious, of course, that Arizona’s procedure is not to be measured by the fact — if it be a fact' — that arrest warrants in Michigan often are issued without a preliminary showing of probable cause.