Medellin v. Dretke

1. Medellin v. Dretke By: Carla Pendino, Laura Renz, and Jill Rough

2. Issue Being Considered • Medellin v. Dretke case • Legislative and Judicial History • Impact on Various Parties and • Institutions • Proposals for Resolving Issues

3. History & Context of Issue • Medellin – a Mexican citizen convicted in TX of the gang rape and murder of two girls in 1993 • Conviction affirmed by state appeals court • Filed habeas corpus in federal court claiming TX failed to notify him of right to consular access (first use of Vienna Convention defense). • District court denied habeas corpus • Appealed to 5th Circuit Court

4. History & Context of Issue • While appeal was before 5th circuit court: • ICJ ruled that in favor of Medellin (via Mexico) • ICJ said Vienna Convention confers individually enforceable rights and US must reconsider its convictions despite procedural default rules • 5th Circuit court denied habeas corpus: • Based on procedural default: Vienna Convention defense not raised in trial • Precedent that Vienna Convention does not confer individually enforceable rights

5. History & Context of Issue • While appeal was before Supreme Court: • Bush issued memo requiring US to follow ICJ ruling and reconsider the case • Medellin filed a new appeal in TX based on Bush memo • Supreme Court decided Medellin had not exhausted his state court appeals and dismissed the case.

6. Important Issues to Consider • Are judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) binding on U.S. courts? If so, how? • Are lower courts obliged to follow ICJ rulings which conflict with previous precedents or defer to the Supreme Court to overrule itself? • Are courts required to defer to executive decisions/proclamations/memos on the topic? • Does the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) afford foreigners an individual right to consular notification and assistance in the event of arrest?

7. Court Rulings • ICJ 2004 Ruling • Vienna Convention DOES confer individually enforceable rights • Case must be reconsidered despite procedural default rules • Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals • Acknowledged the ICJ ruling • Relied on Supreme Court rulings which contradicted ICJ ruling (NO individual rights) • Argue that only the Supreme Court can overrule a Supreme Court decision • U.S. Supreme Court Rulings • Dismissed the case; sent it back to Texas

8. Position of Various Parties • ICJ • Mexico • US/President Bush • US/Supreme Court • US/Federal courts • State courts

9. Opinions of Supreme Court Justices • Highlights of the Majority Opinion: • An international treaty is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is “self-executing” • Decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law • Absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.

10. Opinions of Supreme Court Justices • Dissenting Opinions • Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg. • Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurrence agreeing with the majority’s bottom line, but saying the consular treaty was self-executing. • Main Points • Dissent justices determined the President’s interpretation was correct and Congress did not need, in this case, to enact additional legislation. • Criticized majority opinion for placing “too much weight upon treaty language that says little about the matter.” • Claim that the many previous treaty-related cases interpreting the Supremacy Clause conclude that the ICJ judgment in this case is enforceable absent further action

11. Opinions of Supreme Court Justices • Past Cases Referenced: • Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006) • Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952)

12. Domestic Considerations • State considerations: • Foreign nationals convicted and currently on death row • How to react to the Court’s ruling regarding President Bush’s memo and authority in state law • Congressional considerations: • Possible action in response to Chief Justice Robert’s clear ruling on the need to implement additional legislation • Medellin’s attorney stated regarding the ruling that Congress should push for legislation to bring US courts into compliance with the convention. "Having given its word, the United States should keep its word.”

13. International Considerations • Fallout and Reaction from Supreme Court decision: • Standing in international community • Domestic and international criticism for withdrawing from international organizations • The decision could put the US at odds with EU countries and Mexico which had urged the supreme court to order a new hearing for Medellín. • Could affect how other countries regard U.S. citizens with respect to their laws

14. Resolving the Issues • Three Issues to Resolve • Foreign nationals who are convicted of crimes in the U.S. remain unsure of their individual enforceable right to contact their Consulate following an arrest • Determining which judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are binding in U.S. courts • Pending Mexican criminal cases, including Medellin

15. Proposals for Resolving the Issues • Problem: Foreign nationals who are convicted of crimes in the U.S. remain unsure of their individual enforceable right to contact their Consulate following a criminal conviction • Solution: Include an addendum to the VCCR ensuring that all foreign nationals arrested in a criminal manner will have their consulate notified of their arrest within 24 hours. Thereafter, the home country can decide how to deal with specific cases.

16. Analysis

17. Proposals for Resolving the Issues • Problem: Determining which judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are binding in U.S. courts • Solution: Congress should pass laws to compliment ICJ decisions to avoid confusion of their applicability as binding domestic laws.

18. Analysis

19. Proposals for Resolving the Issues • Problem: Pending cases of Mexican prisoners on death row, including Medellin • Solution: All detainees be granted a re-trial within their respective state, with access to Mexican diplomatic assistance. • Foreign assistance will be at the discretion of Mexico • Rulings will judged based upon state law • Habias Corpus / suppression claims are to be nullified

20. Analysis

21. Conclusion • In March 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas may determine whether to reopen Medellin’s case or not. • 44 other Mexican prisoners affected by the decision remain on death row around the country, including 14 in Texas

22. Works Cited • Medellin Case. (Sources: Duke Law and http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_5928/) • Supreme Court decision, 5th Circuit Court decision, ICJ ruling) • http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/washington/25cnd-texas.html • http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jtl/Vol_43_3_files/Debate.pdf • http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i0V7A97KgoY8Goz9la5CWe8bm7ewD8VKM7300 • http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-984&friend=nytimes#dissent1 • http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Medellin_v._Texas • http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-984&friend=nytimes#dissent1 • http://law.lexisnexis.com/blogs/International/Opening-Argument---LexisNexis-International-Law-Web-Center-Blog • International Court of Justice – Basic Documents; http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0 • Article 36 of the VCCR http://www.sos.state.tx.us/border/intlprotocol/vienna.shtml