In the case of Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas, 2010, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to stay an execution in Texas due to international law violations. The petitioner, Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican national convicted for rape and murder in 1994, argued that he was not informed about his right to contact the Mexican consulate upon arrest - a violation of Article 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). He claimed this lack of consular access impaired his defense significantly. However, despite acknowledging VCCR's importance and urging Congress to enact legislation ensuring its enforcement domestically; the court denied staying Garcia’s execution by a vote of five-to-four because there were no binding federal laws implementing these treaty obligations at that time. The majority opinion stated it would be inappropriate for courts to issue stays based on mere speculation about future legislative action or potential international consequences.

In the dissenting opinion for Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan argued that the court should have stayed Leal's execution until Congress had a chance to consider legislation that would enforce an international treaty providing foreign nationals with access to their home country's consular officials when arrested abroad. The dissenters believed this was necessary because of potential implications on "foreign relations consequences" and it could affect how American citizens are treated in foreign countries. They also pointed out that there was pending federal legislation which aimed at enforcing these rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). Therefore they felt it prudent to delay any action until such time as Congress could act upon this proposed law.