But since murder is illegal in both states, I find it hard to associate this hypothetical with the topic of the OP. people can travel out of state to commit what would be crimes in the original state but not in the destination state, without fear of prosecution. If, in the hypothetical about murder you put forth, murder was legal in the second state, I am not at all sure what the first state could do constitutionally.
But murder is a crime in Florida, so this is still a case of someone being prosecuted for conspiring to commit a crime. That doesn’t address the case where the underlying conduct isn’t itself criminal in the jurisdiction where it happened.
I can’t think of any crimes that are considered felony-level egregious, akin to murder, in one state, but are considered no big deal at all in another. Also, there aren’t many issues where some states are going to such lengths to criminalize and ban than abortion.
So, yes, this is pretty unprecedented.
Wondering: If you (allegedly) plan a murder in Georgia, commit it in Florida, and are found not guilty by a Florida court, could Georgia still prosecute you for conspiracy? My guess is that that would run afoul of the “full faith and credit” clause.
Sort of. This is nearly on point to your question:
While it wasn’t the first case to address the dual sovereignty doctrine, in 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Heath v. Alabama clarified the law. The case involved two men who were hired by the defendant to kidnap and kill the defendant’s wife. The men committed the crime in Alabama but the woman’s body was found in Georgia. Those men were given life sentences.
The defendant, on the other hand, agreed to a deal in Georgia where he pleaded guilty for the death of his wife in exchange for a life sentence. However, Alabama prosecutors decided also to file charges for the murder connected to the kidnapping, and the defendant was sentenced to death.
I think SCOTUS wouldn’t allow it, because this would open up a huge and messy can of worms, with States competing to pass laws which would screw over citizens of other States they don’t care for. This court may have an ideological desire to ban abortion, but they can get that just by overturning Roe; they don’t need to undermine a core principle of federalism.
But:
In the Supreme Court case mentioned above, the defendant was later executed by the state of Alabama in 1992, although he first received a life sentence in Georgia. Because Georgia sentenced the defendant first, they had primary jurisdiction and sentencing priority. However, state officials ceded to Alabama so that the state’s sentence could be carried out.
So it seems that Georgia could at least potentially have refused to hand the guy over to Alabama, but chose to do so.
FWIW “because it is illogical” and “because it is paradoxical” are not constitutional grounds to overturn a State’s general police power, this is something a lot of people struggle with but there is not actually a constitutional prohibition on the States passing unenforceable or nonsensical laws.
By the way the cite about the state of Georgia turning a guy over to be executed in Alabama is an example under our current system of Federalism of the States agreeing to play nice with each other–the constitutional constructs on interstate law enforcement and things like Full Faith & Credit don’t technically apply in such cases, and in a world where the states are acrimoniously weaponizing their criminal systems you might see less open cooperation on such matters. Right now, the default is States like to help other States as much as is legal to prosecute criminals. Part of the reason for that is States generally only even bother going after people who are in an out of state jurisdiction over felony level crimes and they are always working with crimes that are broadly and uncontroversially bad/illegal things everywhere. In a world where that isn’t the case, I think things would get ugly.
Also, that’s not really what I’m talking about. In that case, both States agreed that the defendant had conspired to commit murder. But if a jury in one State found the defendant not guilty, would other States be bound to respect that decision? It looks like not.
If conspiracy is the charge Texas wants to prosecute, why doesn’t the traveler (call her Mary) arrange to visit her sister in New Mexico (which is legal). Once in New Mexico, Mary determines she is pregnant and seeks an abortion.
No conspiracy in Texas.
It’s certainly possible that New Mexico could decline to turn over the woman to Texas, but that’s not relevant to whether the hypothetical Texas law would pass muster.
I agree. I make no claim that this hypothetical law would be easy to administer. It could certainly be used to harass women who get abortions though.
NM- I misread it
I think I found it, with a link that will open - but it seems to be about a different issue entirely , whether Federal courts are bound by Michigan law when an Ohio resident sues Detroit when they are injured as a result of a defect in the sidewalk.
Yeah, I found that too, and it doesn’t seem nearly as relevant as the summary I quoted made it sound.
WRT the New York law about selling sex tourism, am I wrong or is it only penalizing the person organizing and/or profiting from the travel, not the customer? Which is also a narrower focus than aiming generically at anyone involved in making it possible.
Here’s the whole thing
A person is guilty of promoting prostitution in the third degree when
he or she knowingly:
1. Advances or profits from prostitution by managing, supervising,
controlling or owning, either alone or in association with others, a
house of prostitution or a prostitution business or enterprise involving
prostitution activity by two or more persons in prostitution, or a
business that sells travel-related services knowing that such services
include or are intended to facilitate travel for the purpose of
patronizing a person for prostitution, including to a foreign
jurisdiction and regardless of the legality of prostitution in said
foreign jurisdiction; or
2. Advances or profits from prostitution of a person less than
nineteen years old.
It only applies to the person who “advances or profits from prostitution”, not the customer.
Right. So it is not a penalty on the person for traveling but on the promoters of the activity.
My understanding is that the woman actually having the abortion can’t be sued under this law, only others who “aid and abet” her in doing so.
If you’re talking about the current law, I agree. That law was written while Roe is still in effect, of course.
The attempt is to harass and frighten anyone wanting to support her.