SCOTUS Declines to Rule on Foreign Nationals' Rights | Death Penalty Information Center

SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RULE ON RIGHTS OF FOREIGN NATIONALS ON DEATH ROW

The Supreme Court today dismissed as “improvidently granted” the case of Jose Medellin, a Mexican national on death row in Texas. In an unsigned decision, justices dismissed as premature the case in which Medellin argued that an opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) entitled him and the 50 Mexican foreign nationals on death row in the United States to a hearing on whether their rights were violated under the Vienna Convention.

The ICJ determined that the U.S. government had failed to comply with the treaty’s requirement of consular access for foreigners arrested in the United States, and it directed that U.S. courts consider the defendants’ claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it was precluded from giving effect to the ICJ judgment by prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case but before oral arguments, President Bush issued an Executive Order directing the state courts to give effect to the ICJ ruling and consider the complaints of Medellin. The Court heard argument regarding how the Executive Order should effect its consideration of this case. Attorneys for Medellin asked the Court hold the case until after Medellin has his hearing in state court. Attorneys for Texas argued that President Bush does not have the constitutional authority to order Texas courts to comply with the international court’s judgment. In today’s dismissal, the Court cited the President’s Executive Order making Supreme Court review unnecessary, and reserved the right to hear the appeal again once the case had run its course in state court. (Associated Press, May 23, 2005).

Dissenting from the Court’s dismissal, Justice O’Connor stated:

“In this country, the individual States’ (often confessed) noncompliance with the treaty has been a vexing problem. It has three times been the subject of proceedings in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The problem may have considerable ramifications, because foreign nationals are regularly subject to state criminal justice systems. For example, in 2003, over 56,000 noncitizens were held in state prisons. Noncitizens accounted for over 10% of the prison populations in California, New York, and Arizona. Noncompliance with our treaty obligations is especially worrisome in capital cases. As of February 2005, 119 noncitizens from 31 nations were on state death row. In Avena, the ICJ determined that the United States had breached its obligation to inform 51 Mexican nationals, all sentenced to death in this country, of their right to consular notification. Medellín is just one of them. His case thus presents, and the Court in turn avoids, questions that will inevitably recur.”
Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U. S. ____(2005) (O’Connor, J., dissenting).

See the transcript of the oral argument: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04 – 5928.pdf

See DPIC’s Questions and Answers on the Medellin case: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1379

See Medellin’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; Texas’ Brief in Opposition; Medellin’s Reply; and Amici briefs
https://www.debevoise.com/news/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1152312142004

See DPIC’s page on Foreign Nationals
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=198&scid=31