No surprises from the Court: Medellin v. Texas
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts the Supreme Court holds that the State of Texas need not always follow the direction of the President of the United States when it comes to enforcement of international law. Background here. The opinion in Medellin v. Texas is here.
These are my first thoughts, which, somehow ended up getting “unpublished” as a draft rather than as an actual blog post earlier today.
Be forewarned, Medellin isn’t light reading.
Specifically, the Court holds that neither the World Court’s judgment in the Avena litigation (holding Vienna Convention claims must be honored by the courts of signatory nations) nor the President’s Memorandum directing Texas to provide a forum for Avena related claims constitute directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions. The Court holds, in a possible prelude to the detainee litigation, that the Vienna Convention may constitute an international commitment, but it and similar treaties are not binding against the states (such as Texas) unless enabling statutes are passed or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be“self-executing” and is ratified on that basis. Further, Congressional acquiescence alone does not permit the President to order states to give effect to foreign judgments without enabling legislation. Finally, the inherent Article II powers of the President (“Foreign Affairs” & “Take Care” clauses) do not vest the President with the authority he sought to use here.
Parts of the Chief’s opinion are tightly written. The Chief, however, fills other parts with unnecessarily broad dicta that appears to call in to question almost all major human rights treaties to which the United States is a signatory — indeed, footnote 12 explicitly calls in to question the justiciablity & enforceability of both the ICCPR & CAT. Likewise the opinion, once it delivers its main thrust on the justiciability of Vienna Convention claims, is unusually caustic in dealing with the dissent. This is Chief Justice Roberts at both his best and his worst.
Opinio Juris is the singularly best source for commentary (with Prof Julian Ku, imo, giving the best of this analysis). SCOTUSBlog is also collecting interpretations of this unusually complex case.
Tags: international law, Medellin
