The University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change has published an article by Ke Gang, ‘18, “Federal Courts’ Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction on a Secretary of State’s Extradition Decision in the Context of a Convention Against Torture Challenge.”

The article focuses on a split in the circuit courts as to whether federal courts have habeas corpus jurisdiction to review the petition challenging the Secretary of State's extradition decision that might lead an extradited person to be tortured. It argues that habeas corpus review of extradition decisions is appropriate under common law principles.

The article notes that the U.S. Senate ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1990, signifying recognition of the fundamental right of an individual not to be forcibly returned to a country where he might be tortured and that the U.S. enacted binding laws and regulations that require the secretary of state to make a torture determination before surrendering an extraditee who makes a claim under the convention.

Gang discusses habeas corpus review over extradition decisions by examining constitutional, statutory and common law principles as well as the judicial branch’s competence in dealing with challenges under the convention. She notes that the prospect of violating an individual’s due process rights in extradition hearings is high, since they are executive and summary proceedings that do not ensure a fair procedure or neutral decision maker.

The courts have recognized that habeas corpus review affords the flexibility to eradicate fundamental injustice, Gang argues, making it “a reasonable solution for correcting the miscarriages of justice in extradition proceedings.”

A native of China, Gang is working for the Zhong Lun law firm in Beijing. She has also been admitted to practice law in New York.