## Facts

- A Rhode Island gas station manager was robbed and murdered during a bank-deposit run; a federal grand jury indicted Jason W. Pleau on federal robbery-and-murder-related charges carrying potential exposure to the federal death penalty.
- Pleau was already in Rhode Island custody serving an 18-year sentence for parole and probation violations.
- The United States lodged a detainer and requested temporary custody under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD).
- Rhode Island’s governor refused the IAD custody request, citing state policy and opposition to capital punishment.
- The United States then obtained a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5) directing Rhode Island officials to produce Pleau for federal prosecution.
- Pleau sought to block transfer; the governor intervened in support.
- A divided First Circuit panel concluded the IAD barred use of the habeas writ after the governor’s IAD refusal; the en banc court vacated that decision and reheard the case.

## Issues

1. Whether the IAD precludes the federal government from obtaining a state prisoner by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum after lodging a detainer and after the governor refuses an IAD custody request.
2. Whether, under the Supremacy Clause, a state governor may refuse to comply with a federal court’s writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum seeking the prisoner’s presence for federal prosecution.

## Decision

- The en banc First Circuit held the IAD did not bar the United States from using a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to obtain Pleau’s presence in federal court, despite the governor’s refusal under the IAD.
- The court held the Supremacy Clause requires Rhode Island to comply with the federal writ; state officials may not veto or nullify a valid federal court order on policy grounds.
- The court upheld enforcement of the writ and required surrender of Pleau for federal prosecution.

## Legal Principles

- The IAD is not an exclusive mechanism for securing a state prisoner’s presence in federal court; it does not displace the federal courts’ traditional authority to issue writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
- Lodging a detainer and making (or failing in) an IAD custody request does not, by itself, foreclose later resort to a habeas writ absent clear statutory text to that effect.
- Under the Supremacy Clause, a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a binding command issued pursuant to federal law; state officers must comply and may not refuse based on disagreement with federal charging choices or punishment policy.
- The IAD’s prisoner-protective procedures apply when the IAD process is used, but the statute does not confer a right to insist that any transfer occur only through the IAD rather than through other lawful federal process.

## Conclusion

The en banc First Circuit ruled that the federal government could obtain a state prisoner for federal prosecution by habeas corpus ad prosequendum even after a governor refused an IAD request, and that the Supremacy Clause required state compliance with the federal court’s writ.


United States v. Pleau, 680 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (en banc)