Supreme Court Rebuffs Bush Bid to Enforce International Court Order
Updated: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled President Bush didn’t have the authority to order Texas courts to carry out an international court decision.
The 6-3 ruling amounts to “a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency,” SCOTUSblog reports. Today’s majority opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. treats a decision by the International Court of Justice—and Bush’s effort to enforce it—as nonbinding on state courts interpreting state procedural requirements in criminal cases.
“The president has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one is not among them,” Roberts wrote in his opinion.
The international court had ruled that a Texas death row inmate from Mexico, Jose Ernesto Medellin, should have been told of his right to consult with Mexican consular officials as required by the Vienna Convention. The international court called for new hearings for Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals on death row who were not advised of that right, and the administration called on state courts to comply. Texas’ highest criminal court refused on the ground Medellin had not raised his Vienna Convention claim in a timely manner.
Roberts’ opinion examined the United Nations charter governing the international court and concluded that it does not make the court’s decisions automatically enforceable as domestic law.
Addressing arguments made by three dissenters, Roberts said: “We have to confess that we do think it rather important to look to the treaty language to see what it has to say about the issue. That is after all what the Senate looks to in deciding whether to approve the treaty. …
“The dissent’s contrary approach would assign to the courts—not the political branches—the primary role in deciding when and how international agreements will be enforced. To read a treaty so that it sometimes has the effect of domestic law and sometimes does not is tantamount to vesting with the judiciary the power not only to interpret but also to create the law.”
The opinion is Medellin v. Texas (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog). The Associated Press and CNN also have stories on today’s 6-3 ruling.
Updated at 10:37 a.m. and at 11 a.m. to include more details from the opinion.
