You’re not the boss of You’re not the boss of me!me!

Medellin v. TexasMedellin v. Texas

The treatyThe treaty

► Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, adopted Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, adopted in 1963 and now joined by 171 nations, including in 1963 and now joined by 171 nations, including the United States (ratified by Senate in 1969)the United States (ratified by Senate in 1969)

► U.S. was a prime architect of the treaty. U.S. was a prime architect of the treaty. ► A separate Optional Protocol, embraced by 46 of A separate Optional Protocol, embraced by 46 of

those 171 nations, requires governments to accept those 171 nations, requires governments to accept the role of the World Court (the International Court the role of the World Court (the International Court of Justice at The Hague) in deciding disputes under of Justice at The Hague) in deciding disputes under the Vienna Convention. the Vienna Convention.

► President Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Optional President Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Optional Protocol as the Protocol as the MedellinMedellin case unfolded in U.S. case unfolded in U.S. courts, but wants it enforced in that case and those courts, but wants it enforced in that case and those involving 50 other Mexican nationals who won a involving 50 other Mexican nationals who won a case in the World Court on their treaty rights. case in the World Court on their treaty rights.

► Under the Convention’s Article 36, a foreign Under the Convention’s Article 36, a foreign national who is detained by a government that national who is detained by a government that consents to the treaty must be told without delay consents to the treaty must be told without delay that he has a right to contact a diplomat – a that he has a right to contact a diplomat – a consular officer -- from his or her home country. consular officer -- from his or her home country.

► ““While the United States has vigorously insisted While the United States has vigorously insisted on strict compliance with [the Convention] when on strict compliance with [the Convention] when Americans have been detained overseas, Americans have been detained overseas, compliance in the United States has been poor,” compliance in the United States has been poor,” according to one of the filings in the according to one of the filings in the MedellinMedellin case. case.

Texas v. MedellinTexas v. Medellin

►Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas state court and sentenced to death in Texas state court for a 1993 rape and murder of two teenage for a 1993 rape and murder of two teenage girlsgirls

►Medellin filed state habeas corpus action re Medellin filed state habeas corpus action re his right to contact the Mexican consulate as his right to contact the Mexican consulate as required by the Vienna Convention on required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). Consular Relations (VCCR).

► State trial court rejected and Texas Court of State trial court rejected and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmedCriminal Appeals affirmed

Mexico v. United States, Mexico v. United States, (a.k.a. (a.k.a. AvenaAvena case) case)

►After Mexico found out about After Mexico found out about Medellin's detention, it commenced Medellin's detention, it commenced legal action against the U.S. in the legal action against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice (ICJ)International Court of Justice (ICJ)

►Mexico sought relief for Medellin and Mexico sought relief for Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals who, like 50 other Mexican nationals who, like Medellin, were on death row in Medellin, were on death row in American prisons, yet had never been American prisons, yet had never been informed of their VCCR rights informed of their VCCR rights

Medellin v. DretkeMedellin v. Dretke

►Federal habeas corpus petition Federal habeas corpus petition ►District Court denied the petition District Court denied the petition ►Avena decidedAvena decided►Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied

Medellín's application for a certificate Medellín's application for a certificate of appealability; based on Medellín's of appealability; based on Medellín's procedural default procedural default

ICJ ruled in 2004ICJ ruled in 2004

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

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

►Refused to grant habeas relief. Refused to grant habeas relief. ►VCCR did not create individually VCCR did not create individually

enforceable rights. enforceable rights. ►Even if individuals could assert VCCR Even if individuals could assert VCCR

rights, it was too late for Medellin rights, it was too late for Medellin himself to do so - for, according to the himself to do so - for, according to the Court, he had procedurally defaulted Court, he had procedurally defaulted his VCCR claim when he failed to raise his VCCR claim when he failed to raise it in state court. it in state court.

Supreme Court Supreme Court

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

President Bush President Bush

► AmicusAmicus urging the Court to rule that Medellin urging the Court to rule that Medellin had no private right to seek enforcement of had no private right to seek enforcement of the Convention the Convention

► stated the United States would discharge its stated the United States would discharge its international obligations under the international obligations under the AvenaAvena judgment by "having State courts give effect judgment by "having State courts give effect to the [ICJ] decision in accordance with to the [ICJ] decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.“decision.“

►Medellín filed a successive state application Medellín filed a successive state application for a writ of habeas corpus just four days for a writ of habeas corpus just four days before oral argument here. before oral argument here.

Medellin Medellin

►filed a new application for relief in filed a new application for relief in state court in Texas. state court in Texas.

►His application was timely, he pointed His application was timely, he pointed out, because neither the ICJ decision out, because neither the ICJ decision nor the President's memorandum had nor the President's memorandum had previously been available. previously been available.

U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court

►dismissed Medellin's appeal dismissed Medellin's appeal ►because, it noted, the Texas "state because, it noted, the Texas "state

proceeding may provide Medellin with proceeding may provide Medellin with the review and reconsideration of his the review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim that the ICJ Vienna Convention claim that the ICJ required, and that Medellin now seeks required, and that Medellin now seeks in this proceeding." in this proceeding."

5-4 decision5-4 decision

►http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?thttp://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Medellin_v._Texasitle=Medellin_v._Texas

Medellin v. TexasMedellin v. Texas

►Texas Court of Criminal AppealsTexas Court of Criminal Appeals►Vienna Convention granted him an Vienna Convention granted him an

individual right that state courts must individual right that state courts must respect respect

►Constitution gives the President broad Constitution gives the President broad power to ensure that treaties are power to ensure that treaties are enforced, and that this power extends enforced, and that this power extends to the treatment of treaties in state to the treatment of treaties in state court proceedings. court proceedings.

Texas Court of Criminal Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Appeals

►dismissed his petition dismissed his petition ►violate state procedural rules, and that violate state procedural rules, and that

those rules were not supplanted by the those rules were not supplanted by the Convention. Convention.

►The President had no authority to The President had no authority to order the enforcement in state court of order the enforcement in state court of an ICJ ruling, because that would imply an ICJ ruling, because that would imply a law-making power not allocated to a law-making power not allocated to him by the Constitution. him by the Constitution.

Texas arguedTexas argued

► President had contradicted Congress by President had contradicted Congress by seeking to make the Vienna Convention seeking to make the Vienna Convention enforceable not solely through diplomatic enforceable not solely through diplomatic efforts efforts

► President also ran counter to Congress’ wishes President also ran counter to Congress’ wishes because it operated on the assumption that because it operated on the assumption that the treaty created individual rights, not merely the treaty created individual rights, not merely rights of governments vis-à-vis governments. rights of governments vis-à-vis governments.

► Relied upon the Sanchez-Relied upon the Sanchez-LlamasLlamas decision of decision of 2006, interpreting that ruling as a rejection of 2006, interpreting that ruling as a rejection of any binding effect of World Court decisions in any binding effect of World Court decisions in U.S. courts.U.S. courts.

Medellin v. TexasMedellin v. Texas, , 552 U.S. ____2008552 U.S. ____2008

► The Court held that the signed Protocol of the The Court held that the signed Protocol of the Vienna Convention did not make the treaty Vienna Convention did not make the treaty self-executing and, therefore, the treaty is not self-executing and, therefore, the treaty is not binding upon state courts until it is enacted binding upon state courts until it is enacted into law by Congress. into law by Congress.

► Chief Justice Roberts characterized the Chief Justice Roberts characterized the presidential memorandum as an attempt by presidential memorandum as an attempt by the executive branch to enforce a non-self the executive branch to enforce a non-self executing treaty without the necessary executing treaty without the necessary Congressional action, giving it no binding Congressional action, giving it no binding authority on state courts. authority on state courts.

6-3 decision6-3 decision

►http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_984/2007/2007_06_984/