The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Medellin v. Texas case, ruled in a 6-3 decision that the President does not have the authority to order states to follow decisions of the International Court of Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Medellin v. Texas case, ruled in a 6-3 decision that the President does not have the authority to order states to follow decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The International Court of Justice in the Netherlands, commonly known as the World Court, ruled in 2004 that 51 Mexican defendants were not given proper notification of their rights to consular access and therefore were entitled to new hearings. Under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 1963, a detained foreign national in any of the 166 participating countries (including the U.S.) is entitled to contact his or her consular officials "without delay." The decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the ICJ ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules. The international treaty is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said. And the ICJ ruling seeking to implement that treaty inside the U.S. is also not binding, and does not gain added legal effect merely because the President sought to tell the states to abide by the decision, the Court added. In the specific case, Jose Ernesto Medellin, sought to rely on both the ICJ decision and the Bush memo to reopen his case, claiming that he was never given access to any Mexican diplomat while his case was going through Texas state courts. Medellin, a former member of a Houston gang known as "the Black and Whites," was born in Mexico but has lived in the United States since childhood. He was one of five defendants sentenced to die for the 1993 rapes and killings of Jennifer Lee Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16. Although he was read his Miranda rights and was defended by two court-appointed lawyers, Texas law enforcement officials failed to inform Medellin of his right under the Vienna Convention to notify the Mexican consulate of his arrest. Medellin was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death, but he failed to raise the Vienna Convention argument at trial or during sentencing and did so in federal court only after he filed a habeas petition. Mexico filed a grievance with the International Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the United Nations. The ICJ ruled 3 years ago that the United States had violated the rights of Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals after failing to inform them of their Vienna Convention rights. The ICJ declared that the United States should review these cases to determine whether the defendants had been harmed by the lack of notification; the court also concluded that procedural rules, such as those in Texas barring introduction of new arguments in appellate proceedings unless they've been raised earlier in the process, could not be used to block a new review. At the beginning, the Bush Administration did not agree with the ICJ ruling, and, in fact, withdrew from the international protocol that gave the ICJ the authority to enforce the Vienna Convention. Even so, Bush issued a memo in February 2005, agreeing that the U.S. would seek to obey the ICJ, and he told the states involve to "give effect" to that tribunal’s decision. The case thus came to the Court as a major test of presidential authority, in seeking to enforce treaty obligations, to override contradictory state criminal procedure rules. The Supreme Court also ruled that if the president believed it was important to respect the ICJ edict he should have engaged Congress and the states to fashion a solution that would give the ruling legal effect in the United States without explicitly undermining U.S. and state sovereignty. In a brief filed earlier in the Medellin case, Texas suggested that the president, with the state's cooperation, could create a panel of former federal judges to review the 51 cases. This would have averted constitutional conflict. Justice Steven's concurring opinion presents an interesting road map - and a suggestion that states are free to act in support of international treaty obligations even though the Supreme Court in this case has not required them to do so. He noted, in a footnote, that on May 13, 2004, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry commuted the death sentence of Osbaldo Torres because his consular notification rights were violated. Justice Steven's wrote: "One consequence of our form of government is that sometimes States must shoulder the primary responsibility for protecting the honor and integrity of the Nation. Texas' duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that - by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention - ensnared the United States in the current controversy. Having already put the Nation in breach of one treaty, it is now up to Texas to prevent the breach of another…The Court's judgment, which I join, does not foreclose appropriate action by the State of Texas." Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented. The case is Medellin v. Texas, No. 06-984. Medellin was convicted in the June 1993 torture, rape and strangling of Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jennifer Ertman, 14. One gang member, Derrick Sean O'Brien, was executed in July 2006. O'Brien identified Medellin as the person pulling one end of the belt around Ertman's neck as he yanked on the other. He and Medellin were both 18 at the time. Peter Cantu, described by authorities as ringleader of the gang, remains on death row without an execution date. 2 other gang members, Efrain Perez and Raul Villarreal, had their death sentences commuted to life in prison when the Supreme Court in 2005 barred executions for those who were 17 at the time of their crimes. Medellin's brother, Vernancio, was 14 at the time and received a 40-year prison term. (See also:
the Medellin case: Texas May 23, 2005, July 11, 2006, April 30, 2007, Oct. 10, 2007;
Governor Brad Henry’s decision: May 13, 2004;
more news and cases dealing with the Vienna Convention:
June 27, 2001, USA
Feb. 5, 2003, USA / Messico
Feb.6, 2003, Virginia
Feb.6, 2003, Texas
Feb.10, 2003, Oklahoma
Feb. 3, 2004, USA / Messico
March 2, 2004, USA / Messico
May 7, 2004, Oklahoma
Aug.12, 2004, Arkansas
March 23, 2005, Texas
March 31, 2008, Texas.