Judicial Independence and American Sovereignty at Stake in the U.S. Supreme Court Case of Medellin v. Texas
Mon, 08 Oct 2007
The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in Medellin v. Texas on October 10th. This is an international law case determining whether the President can order Texas state courts in a death penalty case to implement a decision by the U.N.’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The ICJ decision stated that Texas authorities violated the rights of 51 Mexican citizens arrested for murder by not granting them their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Specifically, the Texas authorities did not inform the Mexican defendants that they had the right under the Vienna Convention to consult with their government representatives at the Mexican consular office.
This case is like a “Full Faith and Credit” case in a state court, trying to enforce the judgment of an international court, when the U.S. has earlier agreed via a treaty to abide by that international court’s decisions. The main issue before the Supreme Court in Medellin will be whether the President exceeded his authority by telling a state court what it must do in a particular proceeding.There is no statute enacted by Congress on how to implement the Vienna Convention in state or federal court.
There is also a major question here involving federalism and separation of powers. The President, the head of the Executive Branch of the federal government, is ordering a state court what to do in a particular case. The President could not arguably order a state court to do anything because of federalism principles dividing state government from the federal government, as well as the state judiciary from the federal Executive branch. However, does the fact that Article II of the Constitution gives the President authority over foreign affairs mean that the President and the Senate, via a treaty, can bind state courts to abide by decisions rendered by an international tribunal? If so, may the president order the state courts to rule in a specific way in a particular case? That seems to violate federalism and separation of powers.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the judgment of the International Court of Justice was not binding on the Texas state courts because the Vienna Convention is not self-executing, and that Congress had to pass legislation to implement it.Without such congressional legislation, the President lacks the authority to implement the treaty and order state courts to obey the ICJ’s judgments. The federal government appealed, and the Supreme Court took the case.
The real issue in the case is the death penalty. Texas executes more murderers than any other state. Mexico and much of western Europe oppose the death penalty, so this litigation is mainly to stop executions rather than vindicate the authority of the International Court of Justice or sort through the complexities of international law and treaty obligations.
This case is different than some of the controversial international law cases of the past few years. This is NOT a case in which the Supreme Court is using a foreign court’s legal decision to interpret a provision of the U.S. Constitution. This is a case in which the United States has submitted itself, via treaty, to an international adjudicatory body so that it can decide disputes among the nations in some certain area of law, such as trade. Here, the United States agreed to recognize certain rights for foreigners in the U.S. when they are arrested for crimes done in the U.S. The questions presented in this case involve the extent that treaties control U.S. law, the power of the President to declare a non-self-executing treaty to be self-executing (did he exceed his executive authority or not?), and the authority of the federal president to order a state court what to do in a particular case.
This points to the need for great care when the United States joins a treaty involving submission to the authority of some international tribunal. We could find ourselves having foreign courts ordering American courts to act or not act in a certain way.