In Puerto Rico v. Branstad, Governor of Iowa et al., 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have the authority to enforce extraditions between states and territories under Article IV's Extradition Clause. The case arose when Ronald Calder, a fugitive from justice in Puerto Rico who was residing in Iowa, refused to return voluntarily for trial on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. When both the governor of Iowa and local law enforcement declined to arrest or detain Calder for extradition proceedings initiated by Puerto Rican authorities due to doubts about their obligations towards U.S territories as opposed to other states, Puerto Rico filed suit directly with the Supreme Court seeking an order compelling his surrender. The court held that while state governors are generally responsible for enforcing interstate extradition requests under existing statutory framework (18 USC §3182), federal courts also possess inherent power derived from Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI) over such matters if state officials fail or refuse act appropriately; this includes cases involving U.S territories like Puerto Rico which are treated same way as any other state within union regarding criminal extraditions pursuant its commonwealth status granted by Congress through Public Law 600 enacted back in 1950.

In the dissenting opinion for Puerto Rico v. Branstad, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Extradition Clause and argued that it does not grant federal courts jurisdiction to enforce extradition requests between states or territories. He contended that such enforcement should be left to political processes rather than judicial intervention. Furthermore, he believed that this decision could potentially disrupt delicate balances in our federal system by allowing federal courts to intervene in disputes traditionally resolved through negotiation and compromise among state executives. In his view, if a governor refuses an extradition request due to concerns about another jurisdiction’s justice system or human rights record, it is inappropriate for a federal court to overrule this judgment without clear constitutional or statutory authority.