Medellin v. Texas
128 S. Ct. 1346 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are not directly binding domestic law in United States courts. An international obligation arising from a non-self-executing treaty does not become domestically enforceable federal law without an act of Congress, and the President lacks the unilateral authority to transform such an obligation into binding domestic law.
Facts:
- José Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national, participated in the 1993 gang rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston, Texas.
- Following his arrest, local law enforcement officials obtained a detailed written confession from Medellin.
- The officers did not inform Medellin of his right under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to have the Mexican consulate notified of his detention.
- Medellin was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in a Texas state court.
- In a case brought by Mexico against the United States (the Avena case), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that the U.S. had violated the Vienna Convention rights of 51 Mexican nationals, including Medellin.
- The ICJ's Avena judgment held that the U.S. was obligated to provide "review and reconsideration" of the convictions and sentences of these individuals, without regard to state procedural default rules.
- Following the Avena judgment, President George W. Bush issued a memorandum determining that the United States would fulfill its international obligations by having state courts give effect to the decision.
Procedural Posture:
- Medellin was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in a Texas state trial court.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters, affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Medellin filed his first application for a state writ of habeas corpus, raising his Vienna Convention claim for the first time. The trial court denied the application as procedurally defaulted, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
- Medellin filed a habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which was denied.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Medellin's request for a certificate of appealability.
- After the Avena judgment and the President's Memorandum were issued, Medellin filed a second application for a writ of habeas corpus in state court.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the application, holding that neither the ICJ judgment nor the President's Memorandum was binding federal law that could overcome state procedural bars.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a judgment from the International Court of Justice, or a presidential memorandum directing compliance with that judgment, constitute directly enforceable federal law that preempts contrary state procedural rules?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No, neither a judgment from the International Court of Justice nor a presidential memorandum directing compliance with that judgment constitutes directly enforceable federal law that preempts contrary state procedural rules. The distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties is fundamental; the latter require implementing legislation by Congress to have domestic legal effect. The treaties obligating the U.S. to comply with ICJ judgments—the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention and the U.N. Charter—are not self-executing. Article 94 of the U.N. Charter, which states that each member 'undertakes to comply' with ICJ decisions, is a commitment to take future political action, not a directive that gives ICJ judgments automatic domestic legal force. The Charter’s enforcement mechanism, which involves recourse to the U.N. Security Council, is diplomatic rather than judicial, further indicating that ICJ judgments are not meant to be directly enforced in domestic courts. The President’s memorandum cannot unilaterally transform this non-self-executing treaty obligation into domestic law, as the power to make law is vested in Congress. The President's actions do not fall into the categories of executive authority outlined in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, as he is acting contrary to the implicit will of the Senate that ratified a non-self-executing treaty, and there is no history of congressional acquiescence to such an unprecedented executive action.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes, the ICJ judgment, stemming from treaties ratified by the U.S., is self-executing and constitutes binding federal law that state courts must enforce. The Supremacy Clause makes ratified treaties the 'supreme Law of the Land,' and this Court's precedent has long recognized that many treaties operate of their own force without further legislation. The Vienna Convention itself, which concerns specific, judicially manageable individual rights, is self-executing. It is illogical to conclude that a treaty is self-executing but that a binding judgment interpreting that very treaty is not. The language of the U.N. Charter, requiring parties to 'undertake to comply' with a 'binding' ICJ decision, supports enforceability. The majority's contrary holding threatens to undermine the effectiveness of numerous other commercial and diplomatic treaties that rely on similar ICJ dispute resolution mechanisms, placing the nation in a position of breaking its international promises even when the President seeks to honor them.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No, the relevant treaties do not authorize U.S. courts to enforce the ICJ's judgment as binding domestic law. The crucial language in Article 94(1) of the U.N. Charter, that a member 'undertakes to comply' with ICJ decisions, is best read as a promise to take future political action rather than a self-executing command. This interpretation appropriately leaves the decision of how to comply with potentially sensitive international judgments to the political branches. While the President’s memorandum is not legally binding, the United States still has an international obligation to comply with the Avena judgment. Because Texas's failure to provide consular notice created the international dispute, the state has a heightened duty to help honor the nation's commitment by providing the review and reconsideration ordered by the ICJ.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the dualist view of international law within the U.S. legal system, establishing a clear separation between international obligations and domestic law. It affirms that non-self-executing treaties are not judicially enforceable without implementing legislation, thereby preserving Congress's lawmaking power against encroachment by either international tribunals or the executive branch. The ruling significantly curtails the President's power to unilaterally enforce international law domestically, especially when it conflicts with state law, by narrowly interpreting executive authority under the Youngstown framework. Consequently, future enforcement of international court judgments against states will likely require explicit congressional action, reinforcing state procedural autonomy from international legal mandates.
