Definition
1. (Public law / military law) A formal demand made by a government, military authority, or commanding officer for the compulsory taking or use of private property — typically supplies, vehicles, land, or labor — for public or military purposes. The demand is backed by governmental authority and does not require the owner's consent, though compensation may be owed. Requisition in this sense is closely related to, but distinct from, the power of eminent domain: it tends to arise in emergency or wartime contexts and may operate through executive or military command rather than judicial process.
2. (Interstate / international relations) A formal demand made by one sovereign, state, or nation upon another for the surrender of a fugitive from justice. In American constitutional and statutory practice, this is the mechanism by which the governor of one state demands from the governor of another state the extradition of a person charged with a crime. The demanding state issues a requisition accompanied by supporting documentation; the asylum state's governor may then issue a warrant for the fugitive's arrest and surrender.
3. (General / administrative) More broadly, any formal written demand or request issued by a person or body in authority — such as a requisition for supplies, documents, or action — in an official administrative or contractual context.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A demand or request, especially an official one; also used loosely to mean acquiring or commandeering something for one's own use ("he requisitioned the last stapler in the office").
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "The act of requiring, as of right; a demand or application made as of right; as, a requisition for troops or supplies." Webster's also specifically notes the interstate extradition sense: "a demand by one governor upon another for the surrender of a fugitive from justice."
The common use of "requisition" captures the demanding character of the act but misses two things that matter in legal research: first, the constitutional and statutory framework governing the interstate extradition form; and second, the compensation and due process questions that attach to the compulsory property-taking form. In law, a requisition is not merely a forceful request — it triggers specific legal obligations and rights on both sides.
Common Confusion
REQUISITION vs. CONDEMNATION / EMINENT DOMAIN: Both involve the government taking private property without the owner's consent. The distinction lies in procedure and permanence. Eminent domain (condemnation) is typically a formal judicial or quasi-judicial process resulting in a permanent transfer of title, with compensation determined by law. Requisition, particularly in military or emergency contexts, historically implied a temporary taking or commandeering — use of property without a transfer of ownership — though compensation obligations still arise. Researchers should not assume that a historical source using "requisition" means a permanent taking.
REQUISITION vs. EXTRADITION: In the interstate context, "requisition" refers specifically to the governor-to-governor demand that initiates the extradition process. "Extradition" names the broader procedure, including the asylum state's response and the actual surrender. The two terms are often used interchangeably in older sources, but they are technically distinct steps in the same process.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
1. Military requisition — compulsory taking of private property by armed forces for operational use, typically in wartime or occupation.
2. Interstate requisition — the formal gubernatorial demand for surrender of a fugitive under the Extradition Clause (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2) and implementing federal statute.
3. Administrative requisition — an official internal demand for supplies, services, or documents within a government or institutional structure; this form is largely procedural and carries limited independent legal consequence.
Why It Matters in Research
The term carries genuinely different legal meanings depending on whether you are reading a military law source, a constitutional law source on interstate relations, or a general administrative document — and older sources do not always signal which sense they intend. Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should pay close attention to context.
In sources predating the mid-twentieth century, "requisition" in property contexts often refers to wartime or military commandeering, not to the formal condemnation process. This distinction matters because the compensation rules, the procedural requirements, and the available remedies differ. Claims arising from military requisitions were historically handled through claims commissions or specific statutory schemes, not through ordinary condemnation proceedings.
In the interstate extradition context, the requisition is the threshold document — without a proper requisition from the demanding state, the extradition process cannot lawfully begin. Historical cases and treatises analyzing whether a requisition was facially sufficient, properly documented, or validly issued are distinct from cases analyzing whether the underlying extradition itself was proper. Researchers should not conflate challenges to the requisition with challenges to the extradition order.
The administrative requisition sense appears frequently in contract, procurement, and government documents but generates relatively little independent case law. When it appears in litigation, it is usually as evidence of authorization or chain of command, not as a legally operative act in itself.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence treat the term primarily in its two legally significant senses: the demand for surrender of fugitives between sovereigns, and the compulsory demand for property or services by public authority. Their treatment of the interstate extradition sense is careful and reflects the constitutional foundation in Article IV, situating the governor's requisition as the formal trigger for the asylum state's obligations.
What Rapalje & Lawrence do not fully develop — and what later sources would need to address — is the compensation question attached to military and wartime requisitions. Nineteenth-century dictionary treatment of requisition in the property sense focuses on the act of taking rather than the legal consequences of taking. Researchers should supplement dictionary sources with treatises on military law and wartime claims to get the full legal picture on that side of the term.
The historical sources are in general agreement that requisition implies authority and compulsion — it is not a request in the ordinary sense, and the demanding party has a legal basis for the demand, not merely a preference.
Jurisdictional Note
The interstate requisition for extradition is governed by federal constitutional provision and federal statute, making it nationally uniform in its basic structure, though governors retain discretion in practice and state courts have jurisdiction over habeas challenges to surrender. The property-requisition sense varies more significantly: wartime and emergency requisition powers have been exercised under both federal and state authority, and the applicable compensation rules depend on which sovereign acted.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Extradition (Interstate); Eminent Domain and Takings; Military Law and Property Rights.