Term: 2007
Docket: 06-984
Medellin v. Texas
- Pro
06-984 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS DECISION BELOW: 2006 WL 3302639 CERT. GRANTED 4/30/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), I.C.J. No. 128 (judgment of Mar. 31, 2004), the International Court of Justice determined that 51 named Mexican nationals, including petitioner, were entitled to receive review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences through the judicial process in the United States. On February 28, 2005, President George W. Bush determined that the United States would comply with its international obligation to give effect to the judgment by giving those 51 individuals review and reconsideration in the state courts. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the President’s determination exceeded his powers, and it refused to give effect to the Avena judgment or the President’s determination. This case presents the following questions: 1. Did the President of the United States act within his constitutional and statutory foreign affairs authority when he determined that the states must comply with the United States’ treaty obligation to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the judgment? 2. Are state courts bound by the Constitution to honor the undisputed international obligation of the United States, under treaties duly ratified by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases that the judgment addressed? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: AP-75207
In the case of Medellin v. Texas, 2007, Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national convicted for murder in Texas and sentenced to death penalty challenged his conviction on the grounds that he was not informed about his right to contact consular officials as required by Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) had previously ruled that U.S., including state courts like those in Texas, must review convictions of foreign nationals who were not given such notice. However, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that ICJ decisions did not constitute binding federal law enforceable through habeas corpus proceedings unless Congress passed legislation implementing them or unless President made them self-executing through an agreement with another country. Furthermore it stated that presidential memorandum issued by President George W Bush directing states to comply with ICJ ruling exceeded constitutional authority over nation's foreign affairs and could not pre-empt state laws governing criminal procedure.
The dissenting opinion in the Medellin v. Texas case argued that the majority's decision undermined both international law and U.S. foreign policy interests, as well as disregarded presidential authority to enforce treaties. The dissenters believed that when a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes binding federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and thus should be enforced accordingly. They also pointed out that denying enforcement of International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgments could harm American citizens abroad if other countries reciprocate this disregard for ICJ rulings. Furthermore, they disagreed with limiting presidential power to ensure compliance with international obligations, arguing such limitation would weaken America’s standing in global affairs and hinder its ability to demand adherence from others regarding treaties or agreements.
