ANDREW AND TRISTAN TATE PETITION MIAMI FEDERAL COURT FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, CHALLENGE DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (MIAMI, FL) Today, Andrew and Tristan Tate filed a 67-page Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Tate v. Blanche, Case No. 1:26-cv-27049, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition seeks the immediate release of Andrew and Tristan on reasonable bond conditions and vacatur of the Order of Detention entered by Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis. The respondents are Attorney General Todd Blanche, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Florida Priscilla Perez Lopez, and E.K. Carlton, Warden of the Federal Detention Center in Miami (FDC Miami). Andrew and Tristan, dual United States and United Kingdom citizens with no criminal history and no criminal charges pending in the United States, were arrested in Miami on July 18, 2026, on complaints for provisional arrest filed by the United States at the United Kingdom’s request. Following a detention hearing on August 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge Louis denied bail, concluding that Andrew and Tristan had “failed to meet their burdens to demonstrate entitlement to release under either standard.” Andrew and Tristan have been held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at FDC Miami since July 18. The government filed a redacted copy of the United Kingdom’s formal extradition request on October 5, 2026. No extradition hearing has been scheduled. “Andrew and Tristan are American citizens with no criminal history, and they have spent every day since July 18 in the Special Housing Unit at FDC Miami, without a single disciplinary infraction, at the request of a foreign government, on allegations about a decade old,” said Joseph D. McBride, attorney and spokesperson for Andrew and Tristan Tate. “Romanian authorities supervised my clients for more than three years, and the Romanian prosecutor found that they rigorously complied with the obligations imposed on them. The United Kingdom already holds a Romanian order for their surrender. There was no urgent situation in July, and there is none today. “Since 1789, federal law has provided that a person arrested for a non-capital offense shall be admitted to bail. The presumption against bail in extradition cases comes from a misreading of a single passage in a 1903 decision, and in 123 years no discernible standard has developed for overcoming it. “My clients are innocent, and they intend to vindicate their names in a British court. Until then, the Constitution of the United States governs their detention. Live free or die.” Andrew and Tristan argue that extradition proceedings are criminal in nature, that federal law has treated bail as the norm in criminal cases since the Judiciary Act of 1789, and that the government, not the extraditee, should bear the burden of proving flight risk or danger to the community. The petition argues that federal courts have misread the Supreme Court’s 1903 decision in Wright v. Henkel as creating a strong presumption against bail, when the decision confirmed that courts may set bail in extradition cases. In the 123 years since, no discernible standard has developed to define the “special circumstances” an extraditee must show to overcome that presumption. The petition argues that the presumption violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Bail Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, because it is applied arbitrarily without intelligible standards and because it disregards the presumption of innocence. In the alternative, the petition contends that Magistrate Judge Louis erred in finding that Andrew and Tristan failed to show they pose no risk of flight or danger to the community, and in rejecting the special circumstances they presented. On flight risk, the petition relies on Andrew and Tristan’s record in Romania, where they spent 1,193 days in detention, then house arrest, then judicial supervision. On February 25, 2025, the Romanian prosecutor lifted the restrictions prohibiting Andrew and Tristan from leaving Romania, finding that Andrew and Tristan had “rigorously complied” with the obligations imposed and that “there are no plausible reasons to consider that they would have any intention of evading criminal prosecution and trial.” Andrew and Tristan then traveled internationally and returned to Romania to report as required. The petition argues that no diplomatic necessity requires detention, because the United Kingdom already holds a Romanian order for Andrew and Tristan’s surrender. On March 12, 2024, the Bucharest Court of Appeal heard the United Kingdom’s request on the same January 19, 2024, warrants now before the Miami court, granted the request for surrender, and postponed surrender until the conclusion of the Romanian criminal case. For more than two years, the United Kingdom respected that order. The United Kingdom’s access to Andrew and Tristan does not depend on their detention in Miami. In the United Kingdom itself, rape is a bailable offense, and the governing rule for a defendant not yet convicted is a presumption in favor of bail. A defendant in the United Kingdom whose extradition the United States sought for rape would be entitled to that presumption. The petition argues that where the requesting country grants bail, any diplomatic concern arising from release by a United States court is substantially diminished. The extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom authorizes provisional arrest “[i]n an urgent situation.” The petition states that neither the government’s sworn complaint nor its detention memorandum identifies any facts constituting an urgent situation. The United Kingdom issued its warrants more than two years before the Miami arrest, for conduct alleged to have occurred about a decade before that. Beginning in March 2024, Andrew and Tristan’s English solicitors corresponded directly with Bedfordshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service about these very charges. Four days before the arrest, Andrew and Tristan publicly posted their location at the United States Capitol. Deputy U.S. Marshals did not have to search for Andrew and Tristan. The marshals attended a publicly advertised boxing match in downtown Miami where Andrew and Tristan were scheduled to appear. The petition argues that the lack of genuine urgency, together with a documented record of appearance and compliance, supports the special circumstances warranting release. The petition also challenges probable cause. According to the United Kingdom’s formal extradition requests, the last alleged conduct occurred on August 18, 2017, and no complainant contacted the police until August 2022. Three of the complainants did not report to the police; the police solicited information from them. Four of the complainants admit that sex within their relationships with Andrew or Tristan was consensual, in whole or in part. Under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, rape requires that the defendant did not reasonably believe there was consent, and the petition argues that the United Kingdom’s own submissions raise substantial questions about whether the alleged conduct was criminal. The petition argues that due process requires release because Andrew and Tristan are held in highly restrictive conditions of confinement, without probable cause, for an indefinite period. Without any disciplinary sanction, Andrew and Tristan are in the SHU as a protective measure based solely on their notoriety. According to a supervisory attorney at the Bureau of Prisons, the conditions there are five hours of recreation per week, one phone call per month, commissary access once every two weeks, and no television. FDC Miami denied counsel’s written request for non-SHU housing.