Supreme Court overturns presidential directive seeking to implement ICJ decision.

• Author: Crook, John R.

In March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Medellin v. Texas, (1) ruling by six votes to three that neither the International Court of Justice's decision in the Avena case (2) nor President Bush's 2005 memorandum directing state courts to review the convictions of Medellin and other Mexican nationals named in Avena has domestic legal effect. (3) The Court found that the treaties underlying the ICJ judgment and the president's action--the UN Charter, the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations--are not self-executing. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Stevens concurred separately. Justices Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented.

Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized the Court's decision.

In a six to three decision, the Supreme Court regrettably ruled that neither the Avena decision, nor the President's Memorandum constitutes binding federal law for United States courts....

The Government of Mexico closely followed the case of Mr. Medellin and appeared before the Supreme Court as amicus curiae, supporting the defense arguments. Along with Mexico, 12 other Latin American countries, as well as 47 European Union and Council of Europe nations, also participated as friends of the court.

Attorneys of the [Foreign Ministry] and Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program are carefully reviewing the Supreme Court's decision, as well as its legal implications for other Mexican nationals facing death sentences, in order to determine immediate legal actions to preserve their rights.

For the Government of Mexico, States that have accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction must observe its rulings. Therefore, Mexico will continue to pursue all available means to ensure that the rights of the 51 Mexican nationals included in the Avena decision are fully respected. (4)

The decision will be analyzed elsewhere in the Journal (both in an Agora and as an International Decision). For convenience, excerpts from the Supreme Court Reporter's summary of key points follow: (5)

1. The Avena judgment is not directly enforceable as domestic law in state court.

   (a) While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be "self-executing" and is ratified on that basis. The Avena judgment creates an...