Supreme Court: Are International Court of Justice Decisions Binding on State Courts?

[DaJudge]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html

Medell?n v. Texas (06-984)

Oral argument: Oct. 10, 2007
Appealed from: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/) (Nov. 15, 2006)
SEPARATION OF POWERS, INTERNATIONAL LAW, FEDERALISM, VIENNA
CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE, AVENA

Jos? Ernesto Medell?n, a Mexican national, was convicted of capital murder
in Texas district court and sentenced to death for his participation in the
rape and murder of two teenage girls. Medell?n was not advised after his
arrest of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations to contact a Mexican consular official. Under Texas law, Medell?n
waived his rights by not asserting them at trial. Pursuant to the Avena
decision of the International Court of Justice and a memorandum issued by
the President directing state courts to give effect to it, Medell?n argues
that Texas courts must review and reconsider his sentence. On the other
hand, the State of Texas contends that the President lacks the authority
to unilaterally transform an international obligation into domestic law. The
State of Texas also argues that the President?s memorandum infringes on
the sovereignty of the states and that Medell?n has already received the
judicial review prescribed by the Avena decision. The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals refused to give effect to the President?s memorandum on
the grounds that it exceeds his constitutional powers. How the Supreme
Court decides this case will reflect its views on the separation of powers
between the three branches of government, and whether individuals may
enforce the Vienna Convention in court. This decision will clarify the
President?s authority in foreign affairs and may adversely impact the
willingness of foreign nations to enter into future treaties with the United
States.

[Question presented (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#qp)]
[Issue (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#issues)]
[Facts (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#facts)]
[Discussion (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#discussion)]
[Analysis (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#analysis)]Questions presented

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 (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/128/8188.pdf)
judgment in the cases of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the judgment?

2. Are state courts bound by the U.S. Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html) 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 (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/128/8188.pdf) judgment in the cases that the judgment addressed?

Issues

1. Does the U.S. President?s authority over foreign affairs permit him to
compel a state court to comply with the International Court of Justice?s (http://www.icj-cij.org/)
decision that the United States must reconsider the criminal cases of
certain foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to contact
their nation?s consulate when they were accused of a crime?

2. Does the U.S. Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html) compel state courts to comply with the
International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/)?s decision that the United States must
reconsider the criminal cases of certain foreign nationals who were not
notified of their right to contact their nation?s consulate when they were
accused of a crime?

[OrangeCrush]

So wait the US president is lobbying on behalf of a murderous Mexican but he won't do anything to stop the trash from sneaking into the country ....

[Jake_Blues]

Wow, thorny problem. I'd say the senate would have to approve, for it to be binding on the states.

-E

[Dave McDonald]

If international courts trump all local courts, how come that kid that got caned a while back in Thailand didn't have any recourse 'cept to BOHICA?

[Budman]

What type of Visa was Jos? Ernesto Medell?n here on, and/or how long had he had his passport? That will make the difference to me as to whether he has a right to see his embassy or not. If you sneak in under the cloak of darkness... Then all bets are off.

[ZappBranigan]

If the US ratified the treaty under which the international court was constituted, I'd say yes, it is binding because a treaty that is signed by the President and ratified by the Senate can trump even the US Constitution, IIRC.

[jtw2]

What type of Visa was Jos? Ernesto Medell?n here on, and/or how long had he had his passport? That will make the difference to me as to whether he has a right to see his embassy or not. If you sneak in under the cloak of darkness... Then all bets are off.

personally I think that should give you the status of that of a spy and therefore be summarily shot in the head until dead.

[Budman]

personally I think that should give you the status of that of a spy and therefore be summarily shot in the head until dead Dead Dead.

fixed

[TheCopperCowboy]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html

Medell?n v. Texas (06-984)

---->Oral argument: Oct. 10, 2007<----

Appealed from: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/) (Nov. 15, 2006)
SEPARATION OF POWERS, INTERNATIONAL LAW, FEDERALISM, VIENNA
CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE, AVENA

Jos? Ernesto Medell?n, a Mexican national, was convicted of capital murder
in Texas district court and sentenced to death for his participation in the
rape and murder of two teenage girls. Medell?n was not advised after his
arrest of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations to contact a Mexican consular official. Under Texas law, Medell?n
waived his rights by not asserting them at trial. Pursuant to the Avena
decision of the International Court of Justice and a memorandum issued by
the President directing state courts to give effect to it, Medell?n argues
that Texas courts must review and reconsider his sentence. On the other
hand, the State of Texas contends that the President lacks the authority
to unilaterally transform an international obligation into domestic law. The
State of Texas also argues that the President?s memorandum infringes on
the sovereignty of the states and that Medell?n has already received the
judicial review prescribed by the Avena decision. The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals refused to give effect to the President?s memorandum on
the grounds that it exceeds his constitutional powers. How the Supreme
Court decides this case will reflect its views on the separation of powers
between the three branches of government, and whether individuals may
enforce the Vienna Convention in court. This decision will clarify the
President?s authority in foreign affairs and may adversely impact the
willingness of foreign nations to enter into future treaties with the United
States.

[Question presented (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#qp)]
[Issue (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#issues)]
[Facts (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#facts)]
[Discussion (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#discussion)]
[Analysis (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html#analysis)]Questions presented

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 (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/128/8188.pdf)
judgment in the cases of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the judgment?

2. Are state courts bound by the U.S. Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html) 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 (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/128/8188.pdf) judgment in the cases that the judgment addressed?

Issues

1. Does the U.S. President?s authority over foreign affairs permit him to
compel a state court to comply with the International Court of Justice?s (http://www.icj-cij.org/)
decision that the United States must reconsider the criminal cases of
certain foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to contact
their nation?s consulate when they were accused of a crime?

2. Does the U.S. Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html) compel state courts to comply with the
International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/)?s decision that the United States must
reconsider the criminal cases of certain foreign nationals who were not
notified of their right to contact their nation?s consulate when they were
accused of a crime?

Are we in the future, yet? :shrug: What is with Oct. 10, 2007? :confused:

[Jake_Blues]

Are we in the future, yet? :shrug: What is with Oct. 10, 2007? :confused:

Umm, I think the oral argument hasn't happened yet... I don't guess the Supreme Court just "hangs out one night" and decides this crap, they actually schedule it and shit ;)

-E

[Dave McDonald]

Umm, I think the oral argument hasn't happened yet... I don't guess the Supreme Court just "hangs out one night" and decides this crap, they actually schedule it and shit ;)

-E

Here I thought they all just kinda wandered in wearing bermuda shorts and flipflops saying 'Duuuuuuuuude, what's on fer today? Got any Cheetos, man?"

Oh, and there's this in the story: "Medell?n was not advised after his
arrest of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations to contact a Mexican consular official. "

Since when did ignorance of the law become a valid defense?

[denverd0n]

Since when did ignorance of the law become a valid defense?
Since the Miranda ruling?

I have to agree with ZappBranigan. If it was a properly ratified treaty then it is binding on the nation and on the states individually. It appears from the wording of the original post, though, that this is not the case. It appears to me that an international court issued a ruling and the president sent out a memorandum suggesting that this ruling should be recognized and followed. I don't see anything in the Constitution that says every memorandum that the president issues is binding on the states.

[87xjco]

Sounds like the Supreme Courts descision will make new law. or is this going to take a Constitutional ammendment?

If there's not current law that says Treaties that were duly ratified by
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, are binding on Federal and State law, then I would think law needs to be written, it would need to spell out exactly the process on how a Treaty would be binding on Federal and State law.

Otherwise our treaties would mean nothing to other Countries.

[Jake_Blues]

OK, so I did some learnin, cause I didn't know much about the International Court of Justice, so here's what I learned:

The ICJ was created as a part of the United Nations Charter.

The United States Senate ratified the United Nations treaty on 28th July, 1945.

So, I'd say that since we agreed to the treaty that created the ICJ, we're bound by its decisions. Since Federal law generally trumps State law, I'm thinkin Texas is wrong here.

-E

[Budman]

OK, so I did some learnin, cause I didn't know much about the International Court of Justice, so here's what I learned:

The ICJ was created as a part of the United Nations Charter.

The United States Senate ratified the United Nations treaty on 28th July, 1945.

So, I'd say that since we agreed to the treaty that created the ICJ, we're bound by its decisions. Since Federal law generally trumps State law, I'm thinkin Texas is wrong here.

-E



No no no.... this is not a slope you want to go down. We ratified the UN therefore we will do what they say?? No no no...

[denverd0n]

Exactly. The treaty we ratified established the organization known as the UN. It most certainly did NOT obligate us to abide by every decision that the UN undertakes.

[Jake_Blues]

So what is the point of participating? We go to an International court to mediate a dispute, and if they rule our way we abide, if they rule against us, we ignore it? Why would any country enter into a treaty with us, knowing we're lying bastards who don't keep our word?

-E

[jtw2]

So what is the point of participating? We go to an International court to mediate a dispute, and if they rule our way we abide, if they rule against us, we ignore it? Why would any country enter into a treaty with us, knowing we're lying bastards who don't keep our word?

-E

When the UN was established there were a group of countries who exempted themselves from any ruling they don't want to abide by. These are the countries that make up the security council.

But yes, you are starting to realize that the UN is as wortless as a hat full of piss.

[TheCopperCowboy]

But yes, you are starting to realize that the UN is as wortless as a hat full of piss.

Perhaps, but when your eyebrows are on fire and your curly locks are next, a hat full of piss is priceless. ;)

[jtw2]

my piss is flammable.

[Budman]

No no no.... this is not a slope you want to go down. We ratified the UN therefore we will do what they say?? No no no...

Exactly. The treaty we ratified established the organization known as the UN. It most certainly did NOT obligate us to abide by every decision that the UN undertakes.

Wait, did you just reply to one of my post's with "Exactly"???


The world is off kilter...

[jtw2]

true. Gags even agreed with me today. :eek:

[Jake_Blues]

When the UN was established there were a group of countries who exempted themselves from any ruling they don't want to abide by. These are the countries that make up the security council.

But yes, you are starting to realize that the UN is as wortless as a hat full of piss.

I realize the UN is somewhat neutered by the veto power, but it never would have been ratified otherwise. However, in this case, that isn't even an issue. The PotUS wouldn't be issuing memos instructing states to abide by an ICJ ruling if he intended to somehow dispute the ruling. I would imagine that if there was a UN resolution to compel the USA to abide by the decision either through force of arms or other sanctions, we'd veto it, but that wouldn't change the decision of the ICJ, it would just prevent the UN from using force to compel us to follow international law.

Basically, the USA agreed to a treaty that created an international court, we agreed that the jurisdiction of that court was to rule on legal disagreements between member countries and interpret international law, and the ICJ issued a ruling on this issue between Mexico and the US. Then the president issued a memo reiterating this. It seems pretty clear cut to me, we should abide by the ruling.

We'll see on Oct. 10th, I guess :)

-E

[denverd0n]

Wait, did you just reply to one of my post's with "Exactly"???
The world is off kilter...
I know you hate to admit it, but we agree on at least as many things as we disagree on.

[denverd0n]

...we agreed that the jurisdiction of that court was to rule on legal disagreements between member countries and interpret international law...
Here's where you're getting off track. The ICJ does not "rule" on issues in the same sense that an American court "rules" on something. When a court in the United States issues a ruling it carries the weight of law--at least until it is overturned by a higher court. When the ICJ "rules" on something, though, it is more like an opinion offered by a mediator. They try to settle issues peacefully between disputing nations, but their rulings do NOT carry the weight of law. Not here in the U.S. Not in any country. All countries treat ICJ "rulings" the same way we do, as a sort of strong suggestion, but not as a binding, legal pronouncement.

[jtw2]

exactly. more like non-binding arbitration rather than a court ruling.

I honestly have no idea why we are involved in the UN at all. we should kick them the hell out of New York and new factory in it's place that makes nothing but firearms.

Fawk the UN.

[Budman]

exactly. more like non-binding arbitration rather than a court ruling.

I honestly have no idea why we are involved in the UN at all. we should kick them the hell out of New York and new factory in it's place that makes nothing but firearms.

Fawk the UN.

But not before they pay all thier parking tickets.

[Jake_Blues]

Here's where you're getting off track. The ICJ does not "rule" on issues in the same sense that an American court "rules" on something. When a court in the United States issues a ruling it carries the weight of law--at least until it is overturned by a higher court. When the ICJ "rules" on something, though, it is more like an opinion offered by a mediator. They try to settle issues peacefully between disputing nations, but their rulings do NOT carry the weight of law. Not here in the U.S. Not in any country. All countries treat ICJ "rulings" the same way we do, as a sort of strong suggestion, but not as a binding, legal pronouncement.

They DO rule on disputes between member countries regarding issues of International Law, just like US courts rule on issues of US law. You can view this as a type of arbitration if you like, but the fact of the matter is that we've signed a treaty saying we'll comply with any rulings they make.

Article 94 of the UN Charter -

1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.

2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.


This refers back directly to one of the issues raised in the SCOTUS case we're discussing. Are US state governments bound by the US constitution to honor international obligations of the United States, under treaties duly ratified by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate? I say yes, but it will be very interesting to hear what SCOTUS says.

-E

[Oscar]

No way turn it into a brothel the UN has Ducked the world for so long might as well turn a profit now.

[jtw2]

Article 94 of the UN Charter -

1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
In other words we "strongly encourage"
2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

where we have veto power

In short we don't have to abide by a thing they say.

[Jake_Blues]

Article 94 of the UN Charter -

1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
In other words we "strongly encourage"


How do you translate "each member undertakes to comply" to "strongly encourage"?

Undertake, verb: 1. accept as a charge; 2. accept as a challenge; 3. promise to do or accomplish

Comply, verb: 1. act in accordance with someone's rules, commands, or wishes

The USA was a party in this decision, therefore it is our obligation to undertake to comply with the decision.


2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

where we have veto power

In short we don't have to abide by a thing they say.

We can veto any measure that the UN might take to force us to comply with the obligations incumbent upon us under the court's judgment. This does not change the judgment of the ICJ in any way, or change the fact that we have an obligation to comply with the ruling.

There is a big difference between "we don't have to" and "they can't make us".

-E

[jtw2]

ok, believe what you want. not gonna argue with you about it I'm just trying to tell you that the words used have no force of law.