You’re not the boss of me! Medellin v. Texas

The treaty ► Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, adopted in 1963 and now joined by 171 nations, including the United States (ratified by Senate in 1969) ► U.S. was a prime architect of the treaty. ► A separate Optional Protocol, embraced by 46 of those 171 nations, requires governments to accept the role of the World Court (the International Court of Justice at The Hague) in deciding disputes under the Vienna Convention. ► President Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Optional Protocol as the Medellin case unfolded in U.S. courts, but wants it enforced in that case and those involving 50 other Mexican nationals who won a case in the World Court on their treaty rights.

► Under the Convention’s Article 36, a foreign national who is detained by a government that consents to the treaty must be told without delay that he has a right to contact a diplomat – a consular officer -- from his or her home country. ► “While the United States has vigorously insisted on strict compliance with [the Convention] when Americans have been detained overseas, compliance in the United States has been poor,” according to one of the filings in the Medellin case.

Texas v. Medellin ► Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas state court for a 1993 rape and murder of two teenage girls ► Medellin filed state habeas corpus action re his right to contact the Mexican consulate as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). ► State trial court rejected and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed

Mexico v. United States, (a.k.a. Avena case) ► After Mexico found out about Medellin's detention, it commenced legal action against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ► Mexico sought relief for Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals who, like Medellin, were on death row in American prisons, yet had never been informed of their VCCR rights

Medellin v. Dretke ► Federal habeas corpus petition ► District Court denied the petition ► Avena decided ► Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Medellín's application for a certificate of appealability; based on Medellín's procedural default

ICJ ruled in 2004 ► U.S. courts had to grant "review and reconsideration" of all 51 cases.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ► Refused to grant habeas relief. ► VCCR did not create individually enforceable rights. ► Even if individuals could assert VCCR rights, it was too late for Medellin himself to do so - for, according to the Court, he had procedurally defaulted his VCCR claim when he failed to raise it in state court.

Supreme Court ► agreed to hear an appeal of the Fifth Circuit's ruling

President Bush ► Amicus urging the Court to rule that Medellin had no private right to seek enforcement of the Convention ► stated the United States would discharge its international obligations under the Avena judgment by "having State courts give effect to the [ICJ] decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.“ ► Medellín filed a successive state application for a writ of habeas corpus just four days before oral argument here.

Medellin ► filed a new application for relief in state court in Texas. ► His application was timely, he pointed out, because neither the ICJ decision nor the President's memorandum had previously been available.

U.S. Supreme Court ► dismissed Medellin's appeal ► because, it noted, the Texas "state proceeding may provide Medellin with the review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim that the ICJ required, and that Medellin now seeks in this proceeding."

5-4 decision ► Medellin_v._Texas Medellin_v._Texas Medellin_v._Texas

Medellin v. Texas ► Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ► Vienna Convention granted him an individual right that state courts must respect ► Constitution gives the President broad power to ensure that treaties are enforced, and that this power extends to the treatment of treaties in state court proceedings.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ► dismissed his petition ► violate state procedural rules, and that those rules were not supplanted by the Convention. ► The President had no authority to order the enforcement in state court of an ICJ ruling, because that would imply a law-making power not allocated to him by the Constitution.

Texas argued ► President had contradicted Congress by seeking to make the Vienna Convention enforceable not solely through diplomatic efforts ► President also ran counter to Congress’ wishes because it operated on the assumption that the treaty created individual rights, not merely rights of governments vis-à-vis governments. ► Relied upon the Sanchez-Llamas decision of 2006, interpreting that ruling as a rejection of any binding effect of World Court decisions in U.S. courts.

Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. ____2008 ► The Court held that the signed Protocol of the Vienna Convention did not make the treaty self- executing and, therefore, the treaty is not binding upon state courts until it is enacted into law by Congress. ► Chief Justice Roberts characterized the presidential memorandum as an attempt by the executive branch to enforce a non-self executing treaty without the necessary Congressional action, giving it no binding authority on state courts.

6-3 decision ► /2007/2007_06_984/ /2007/2007_06_984/ /2007/2007_06_984/