Medellín v. Texas
| Medellín v. Texas | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 10, 2007 Decided March 25, 2008 | |
| Full case name | Jose Ernesto Medellin, Petitioner v. Texas |
| Docket no. | 06-984 |
| Citations | 552 U.S. 491 (more) 128 S. Ct. 1346; 170 L. Ed. 2d 190; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2912; 76 U.S.L.W. 4143; 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,242; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 126 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Medellín v. State, No. 71,997 (Tex. Crim. App., May 16, 1997); petition denied, S.D. Tex.; certificate of appealability denied, 371 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 543 U.S. 1032 (2005); cert. dismissed, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (per curiam) (Medellín I); Ex parte Medellín, 223 S.W. 3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); cert. granted Ex parte Medellín, 550 U.S. 917 (2007). |
| Subsequent | Stay and petition denied, 554 U.S. 759 (2008) (Medellín III) |
| Questions presented | |
| 1. Did the President of the United States act within his constitutional and statutory foreign affairs authority when he determined that the states must comply with the United States’ treaty obligation to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the judgment? 2. Are state courts bound by the Constitution to honor the undisputed international obligation of the United States, under treaties duly ratified by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases that the judgment addressed? | |
| Holding | |
| Neither Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, nor the President's Memorandum to the Attorney General (Feb. 28, 2005) constitutes an enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention, April 24, 1963, (1970) 21 U.S.T. 325, T.I.A.S. No. 6820; Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; Article 94 of the United Nations Charter; U.S. Const., Art. II, §3 | |
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.