Medellin v. Texas: Supreme Court Holds ICJ Decisions under the Consular Convention Not Binding Federal Law, Rejects Presidential Enforcement of ICJ Judgments over State Proceedings
Document Type
Blog Post
Publication Title
ASIL Insights
Publication Date
4-17-2008
Volume
12(6)
Abstract
(Excerpt)
On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Medellin v. Texas, a case in which a Mexican national on death row in Texas challenged his conviction on the basis that he was not afforded his right of consular notification under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the 2004 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Mexico v. United States (Avena), requiring the United States to provide further "review and reconsideration" of the convictions of petitioner Medellin and 51 other Mexican nationals on death row in the U.S., was not binding federal law and was therefore, absent an implementing statute, not enforceable by federal courts against Texas, and thus did not preempt the state procedural bar to Medellin's habeas claim. The Court further held that a 2005 memorandum issued by President Bush, stating his intention to enforce Avena, did not create binding law that could be enforced against Texas.
Comments
Available at: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/12/issue/6/medellin-v-texas-supreme-court-holds-icj-decisions-under-consular
Originally published in Volume 12, Issue 6 of ASIL Insights. Website: https://www.asil.org/insights