In the case of Puerto Rico v. Branstad, the Court ruled that states had:
A. a mandatory duty to extradite fugitives properly demanded.
B. the power to charge residents and nonresidents different fees.
C. the authority to execute treaties with foreign governments.
D. to honor judgments from other states.
Is it A?
You're right.
Yes, you are correct. The correct answer is A. In the case of Puerto Rico v. Branstad, the Court ruled that states had a mandatory duty to extradite fugitives properly demanded.
To arrive at this answer, you can follow these steps:
1. Start by understanding the facts of the case: Puerto Rico v. Branstad involved the issue of whether Puerto Rico, as a territory, could demand extradition of a fugitive from another state.
2. Identify the central legal question: The key issue in the case was whether a state had a mandatory duty to extradite fugitives properly demanded.
3. Review the options: In this case, the options provided are (A) a mandatory duty to extradite fugitives properly demanded, (B) the power to charge residents and nonresidents different fees, (C) the authority to execute treaties with foreign governments, and (D) to honor judgments from other states.
4. Analyze each option: Option A aligns with the central legal question by stating that states had a mandatory duty to extradite fugitives properly demanded. The other options do not address the issue of extradition.
5. Conclude: Based on the analysis, option A is the correct answer. The Court indeed ruled that states had a mandatory duty to extradite fugitives properly demanded.