On October 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argu­ments in Medellin v. Texas, a case that will deter­mine whether President Bush over­stepped his author­i­ty by order­ing state courts to com­ply with a 2004 International Court of Justice (ICJ) rul­ing. The case involves Texas death row inmate Jose Medellin, one of 51 Mexican for­eign nation­als who were denied their right to con­tact Mexican con­sular offi­cials after their arrest. The ICJ’s 2004 rul­ing called on U.S. courts to review the cas­es in light of this treaty vio­la­tion, but Texas refused to review Medellin’s case and he peti­tioned the U.S. Supreme Court for relief. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case at that time, but before it could be decid­ed, President Bush ordered the respec­tive state courts to pro­vide the review required by the ICJ. The Supreme Court then dis­missed Medellin’s case to allow time for this review. Texas courts again refused to grant such a review, claim­ing that President Bush did not have the pow­er to give such an order. Medellin again appealed to the Supreme Court, which grant­ed cer­tio­rari and will now con­sid­er the extent of President Bush’s pow­er to order com­pli­ance with the ICJ’s rul­ing. Texas has argued that the Constitution does not give the pres­i­dent direct author­i­ty over courts, state or fed­er­al, even to have them con­duct a hear­ing. The Bush Administration con­tends that state courts can­not be allowed to veto treaty oblig­a­tions and that the pres­i­dent has inher­ent author­i­ty stem­ming from his unique for­eign policy role.

(Dallas Morning News, September 20, 2007). See Foreign Nationals and U.S. Supreme Court.

Citation Guide