Supreme Court Sides with Texas
[Guest post by DRJ]
No, this isn’t an NCAA basketball thread although I’m sure the ‘Horns would welcome assistance from any source. Instead, this post is about Texas death row inmate Jose Medellin whose Supreme Court case was discussed last fall here and here.
Medellin was convicted by a Texas court for the brutal 1993 rapes and murders of two young girls and sentenced to death. Medellin appealed, unsuccessfully, and in 2003 filed a claim in international court asserting a violation of international law. Specifically, he claimed that as a Mexican citizen (born in Mexico but residing in the US since age 6), he was not allowed to consult with the Mexican consul after his arrest as provided in a treaty implementing the 1963 Vienna Convention. In 2004, an international court ruled that Medellin’s conviction and those of 50 other Mexicans on death row in several states violated the treaty provision and recommended new court hearings for each.
President Bush directed the DOJ to support Medellin’s appeal in the Supreme Court because Bush had agreed to abide by the international court decision and ordered states to comply. He contended that state courts were bound by his order. (Bush also issued an order that ended US recognition of the provision, but it did not apply to Medellin’s case or to the other Mexican inmates whose cases predated Bush’s order.) Texas argued that the President could not override contrary state court decisions and laws.
Today, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas:
“The president may not “establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law,” [Chief Justice John] Roberts said. Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action, he said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented. The international court judgment should be enforced, Breyer wrote. “The nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word,” he said.
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the outcome of the case, said nothing prevents Texas from giving Medellin another hearing even though it is not compelled to do so. “Texas’ duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that — by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention — ensnared the United States in the current controversy,” Stevens said.”
I’ll leave it to the Constitutional scholars to parse the Medellin opinion. What strikes me is how predictable these positions were, albeit in hindsight:
Bush invoked and stood firmly behind executive power, something he emphasized even before he was elected President. Chief Justice Roberts recognized the tension between the powers of the federal government and the states and (apparently) meticulously analyzed the boundaries of those powers and of the treaty.
In the dissent [pp. 50-et seq], Breyer focused on the importance of international law, as he did in joining the majority in earlier death penalty opinions and in this article. Souter and Ginsburg joined in the dissent.
Finally, beginning at p. 44, Stevens saw “great wisdom” in Breyer’s dissent but nevertheless concurred in the majority decision. He concluded that the treaty was not self-executing and thus was not incorporated into domestic law. However, he seemed displeased with Texas for putting the US in breach of an international treaty and urged Texas to grant Medellin a hearing even if one was not required in order to balance the “honor of the Nation” against the “modern cost of compliance.” (In an argument that shows he clearly doesn’t know the Texas audience, Stevens also noted that “… the cost to Texas of complying [with the notice provision] would be minimal … *** It is a cost that the State of Oklahoma unhesitatingly assumed.”)
Medellin committed his brutal rapes and murders when he was 18. He’s 33 now. Having exhausted his appeals, the State of Texas plans to ask for an immediate execution date as soon as the Supreme Court decides the Baze lethal injection case.
— DRJ
Although this case includes issues of federalism, and balance of powers within the federal government, for me the most important aspect of it is that SCOTUS said that the ICJ doesn’t have binding jurisdiction over the US.
Suits me just fine, thank you.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 3/25/2008 @ 1:18 pmHear, hear.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/25/2008 @ 1:42 pmThank God! This animal does not need to continue to breath.
Sue (f1a5d3) — 3/25/2008 @ 1:42 pmStevens is just plain wrong. The several States do not enter into, nor by implication use their own judgment whether to honor, treaties with foreign nations. Not even the Republic of Texas. In this area, they only do what the federal government tells them to.
I would, however, like to see the reaction of our leftie friends to this decision. Will their glee at “King George” being slapped down override their disappointment that international law did not overrule American law in a death penalty case?
nk (34c5da) — 3/25/2008 @ 2:31 pmNK,
I think Bush’s position was fairly liberal to start with, i.e., a Presidential order overrides state criminal law and procedure. If liberals react with glee, it will only be because Bush lost.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/25/2008 @ 2:53 pmAdios, Amigo!
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/25/2008 @ 3:04 pmWas Medillin a legal immigrant? Does his status in this country change his rights to Consular access?
Paul from Fl (47918a) — 3/25/2008 @ 3:18 pmJust asking.
Medillin tried to get out of the conviction by floating a technicality balloon. He’s guilty of the crimes he was convicted of. Consular involvement wouldn’t have changed that.
kimsch (2ce939) — 3/25/2008 @ 3:22 pmPaul from FL,
At least one report states that Medellin was an illegal immigrant but it’s my understanding that his family came to the US when he was 6-years-old. It doesn’t change his status but to me it was his parents’ illegal act, not his.
Also, I don’t think his status had any bearing on the consular notification provision. In theory, it existed to protect immigrants (legal or otherwise) who might need assistance from their home country if they were charged with a crime in the US. To the extent that was the purpose of the provision, Medellin was not the normal beneficiary. However, I think it’s clear that the notice requirement wasn’t based on whether the person actually needed help, only on whether or not the person arrested was a foreign national.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/25/2008 @ 3:28 pmAs I commented on an earlier thread, if I were Medellin’s attorney the last thing I would want would be him talking to an “advocate” from the Mexican consulate. First of all, there is no attorney-client privilege or confidentiality. I can just see them blabbing everything the prisoner told them to everyone they meet. Moreover, my experience is that the “advocates” are complete morons whose only other career alternative is McDonald’s and their position is due to [censored for extreme political incorrectness][by me, nk, not Patterico].
nk (34c5da) — 3/25/2008 @ 3:59 pmMy earlier post on this case was more of a response to the mindless idiocracy coming from the Glenn Becks and Jerome Corsis of the right, saying that this case reflected the latest in a long string of efforts by Bush and the Mexican gov’t to created a single North American country.
I defended the President’s attempt to enforce the terms of a duly ratified treaty within the borders of the US, even if that meant directing state courts to take a particular action that was prohibited by the procedural law of that state.
In reading CJ Roberts majority opinion, I think he has gotten the technical issue correct — that the ICJ treaty was not self-executing, and for any rights under the ICJ to constitute substantive federal law binding on the states and their courts it would be necessary for congressional legislative enactment. Here the Court had previously held that the ICJ treaty was not self-executing. And the President’s memorandum directing the state courts to take certain actions is not a substitute for congressional action.
I prefer this outcome because I’m not thrilled with the idea of having decisions of the ICJ be enforceable at the whim of whoever occupies the WH via Executive Order.
That said, given the prevailing political winds, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a bill introduced in Congress to do exactly what the Court says is necessary to make decisions of the ICJ binding federal law. I don’t think Pres. Bush would sign such a bill, but I fully expect that Obama or Clinton would sign such a bill.
So, let out a sigh of relief for now, but it may be short-lived.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/25/2008 @ 4:19 pmYou may be right, WLS, and it’s also true that your post was only marginally related to the Medellin case so I’ll de-link it if you want.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/25/2008 @ 4:27 pmWLS, I don’t mind if Congress passes such a law. If that happens, it keeps the principle of sovereignty in place. What I don’t want is the Court using some sort of back door to yield judicial, and effectively also legislative, sovereignty to unaccountable foreign powers.
This decision also preserves the supremacy of the Supreme Court, consistent with Article III. Fans of the ICJ want it to be coequal with SCOTUS, if not outright superior to it, but Article III doesn’t permit that. (That is also one of problems with the ICC, though by no means the only one.)
I’m a big fan of sovereignty, and I’ll applaud any decision that sticks a thumb in the eye of fans of “emerging international law”, or whatever the euphemism was for European socialist preaching.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 3/25/2008 @ 5:20 pmI’m also glad of the decision, for the reason WLS gave, that it’s not good for an international court’s authority to be upheld and decided by executive order alone. And when Congress contemplates such a law, its members who wish re-election will have to consider public opinion. All congressional candidates should be questioned on this issue.
And it’s nice to see one of the founding fathers of blogging posting here!
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 3/25/2008 @ 5:38 pmDoes anyone think Bush set this whole thing up to end this way? Would he need to take the anti-sovereignty position he took to get the supreme test?
I saw that spin today and I thought it might be possible. The problem is that Bush has been so anti-sovereignty throughout his presidency that it’s not surprising he’d take the position he did. Especially regarding his beloved Mexican criminals.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/25/2008 @ 5:39 pm“The US Supremes–Smacking Down Overreaching Presidents from several political parties since 1803.”
And yes, the fact that the USSC effectively told the ICJ to pound sand is the best part of the case.
M. Scott Eiland (b66190) — 3/25/2008 @ 5:42 pmJ Curtis #15,
I doubt it. One of Bush’s Presidential goals was and is to strengthen the powers of the executive because he feels the Presidency was weakened in the years before he took office and was not an effective check on the legislative and judicial branches. Here’s an article that partially discusses his concerns.
When we were discussing this last fall, I think I mentioned that the Administration’s position in this case may have been decided during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ tenure. If so, I suspect this was primarily Gonzales’ decision. A non-lawyer President probably relies on his Attorney General’s advice in a case like this. Really, Bush had a lot more things to do than worry about Jose Medellin.
In addition, when this arose, Bush issued an order that the US is no longer bound by the consular notification provision. He wouldn’t have done that if he had a secret agenda in this area.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/25/2008 @ 6:07 pmDRJ — no need to delink my earlier post. I think that post is instructive on the overall subject matter here.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/25/2008 @ 6:19 pmPerhaps this will send a message to certain groups that we Texans have one philosophy: if you kill us, we kill you back.
Medellin was convicted in 1993. Now, 18 years later, the SCOTUS upholds the conviction and sentence. Think about this: why are the families of victims required to suffer though such a long time until a sentence is carried out? Does it give them any satisfaction that Medellin found a loop hole to profit from?
Personally, I am tired of allowing death row criminals to live 15-20-25 years before their sentence is carried out. The victims, and their families, deserve better.
retire05 (76b78f) — 3/25/2008 @ 6:20 pm17 DRJ
Bush had a lot more things to do than worry about Jose Medellin.
What I meant by the spin I was referring to was it claimed that Bush wanted to get the matter of international courts vs states settled by taking a position which would force a supreme court precedent on matters concering international law vs US law. At least US state law.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 3/25/2008 @ 7:00 pmNow that his conviction was upheld now he should be exicuted and if the liberals dont like it then they can GO TAKE A HIKE and he can return to mexico in along wooden box called A COFFIN
krazy kagu (711c87) — 3/26/2008 @ 6:46 amOne point that DRJ mentions struck me in light, curiously, of an article that I read in Tuesday’s edition of the Financial Times, titled “Laying Down the Law” (subtitled, “Medvedev vows to fight Russia’s ‘legal nihilism'”).
DRJ points out: “Bush invoked and stood firmly behind executive power, something he emphasized even before he was elected President.” Compare that with the position of President Putin’s handpicked successor, on the role of law in Russian society, who states, in the Financial Times article, ” ‘Russia is a country where people don’t like to observe the law. It is, as they say, a country of legal nihilism.'” The Financial Times interviewer adds, “Mr. Medvedev insists Russia can build the rule of law, outlining a three point plan. The first step is to assert the law’s supremacy over executive power and individual actions. The second is to ‘create a new attitude to the law. . . .'” Third is to create an effective courts system, above all by assuring independence of the judiciary.”
It is strange to view Bush’s view of the law as directed to an assertion of the executive power’s supremacy over the rule of law, the systematic emasculation of Congress and the Judiciary, and the creation of a “new attitude” toward the law that places the rule of law below Bush’s exercise of executive power. Is Bush more Russian than Medvedev?
ROGER KATZ (aae69a) — 3/26/2008 @ 8:38 amI think he should get his meeting with the consulate. Someone has to bring him that last meal.
rhodeymark (1aaf2a) — 3/26/2008 @ 9:23 amRoger Katz — I don’t think you could further mischaracterize the proponents of the “strong executive” more so unless you were a staff writer for The Nation.
A strong executive under Article II does not entail the emasculation of the other branches, nor does it mean the executive is supreme to the law.
Rather, the reinvigoration of the Executive is to return it to the Constitutional role it enjoyed before Watergate — being co-equal to the other branches, and not being under the thumb and watchful eye of Congress. What you see as emasculation is simply a push-back from a branch that has itself been emasculated since 1974 by various extra-consitutional acts of Congress.
Its a balancing between the branches acheived by their exercise of the checks and balances they have against each other. You may favor a strong legislature or a strong judiciary, but that doesn’t mean that what the framers favored. I think the framers favored continual tension between the branches. An executive that pushes back against encroachment by the other branches into areas of responsibility given to the executive under Article II is simply keeping up that tension.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/26/2008 @ 10:25 amWell said, WLS, a comparison between Bush and Putin is beyond ignorant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/26/2008 @ 10:47 amYou’ll forgive me a little hyperbole, WLS. But, the incremental totalitarianism that is inching its way across the United States is not science fantasy as I see it. A strong executive is one thing; the “unitary executive,” that Bush has sought, with the assistance of Addington and Yoo, is something else again. Yes, the framers of our Constitution anticipated and expected tension between the branches — to keep them all honest so that our Republic would work. I do not see that now. What I do see is more and more power being concentrated in the Executive to the detriment of the two other Branches. Congress is obsequious, the Judiciary less so. With the decision in the Medellin case, I have some hope that the Republic will survive more or less intact to see the 22nd century.
ROGER KATZ (aae69a) — 3/26/2008 @ 12:41 pmThe World Court has ordered the US to stay the execution of Jose Medellin and 4 others Mexicans on Texas’ death row.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 7/16/2008 @ 9:15 am