Supreme Court stands up for US sovereignty

[Xiahou]

In a ruling against the Bush administration, no less.

Mexico said American officials violated the 1963 Vienna Convention. when they failed to allow the citizens of another country access to its representatives after arrest. The world court agreed.

But in a 6-3 ruling March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court said the president overstepped his bounds when he ordered states in a memo to abide by the world court's ruling. The high court said a president must consult Congress before issuing an order based on a treaty.

Good decision- the "world court" has no legal jurisdiction over Texas courts.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Good decision- the "world court" has no legal jurisdiction over Texas courts.

Surely, that's not what the issue is.

The United States has signed a treaty, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Hague. The United States was found to be in breach of the treaty.

The US Supreme Court has found that the President has screwed up the constitutional process to ensure that a member state observes the United States international obligations.

As far as I can see, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the treaty does not apply to the United States or its constituents.

This is a good thing, otherwise, as the article notes, US citizens can be denied consular access when charged with crimes in other countries.

Really, despite your military power, you are not a law unto yourselves, and nor would you want to be, I suspect, since the USA was instrumental in fashioning the idea of international legal protections and rights.

[Furious Mental]

Ultimately it didn't turn on whether or not the ICJ has "jurisdiction" over anything, but whether or not the exercise of executive power giving effect to its interpretation of a treaty was valid. That presupposes that the interpretation is not enforceable in its own terms but only if your government exercises a discretion to enforce it, which is what the US Solicitor-General said. From what I have seen of questions posed by the majority they were mostly concerned about the separation of powers (i.e. where would it leave the US Supreme Court) than "national sovereignty".

[Big_John]

Surely, that's not what the issue is.

The United States has signed a treaty, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Hague. The United States was found to be in breach of the treaty.

The US Supreme Court has found that the President has screwed up the constitutional process to ensure that a member state observes the United States international obligations.

As far as I can see, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the treaty does not apply to the United States or its constituents.

the majority holding in this particular case is merely that 1) a previous ICJ decision doesn't preempt certain state procedural laws, and 2) the president's memo is unconstitutional (the president assumed beyond-executive powers in the memo).

both are basically technicality issues.

[Banquo's Ghost]

the majority holding in this particular case is merely that 1) a previous ICJ decision doesn't preempt certain state procedural laws, and 2) the president's memo is unconstitutional (the president assumed beyond-executive powers in the memo).

both are basically technicality issues.

That makes sense. Thank you.

[Tribesman]

So instead of...

the "world court" has no legal jurisdiction over Texas courts.

...its really , improperly processed thingies don't count until they are properly processed .
Wow , a real shock horror story

But thanks for the link Xiahou as it does have a real story there
Texan laws don't apply in Texas
Whats even better ?
American laws don't apply in America

[Xiahou]

the majority holding in this particular case is merely that 1) a previous ICJ decision doesn't preempt certain state procedural laws, and

Basically my point.

2) the president's memo is unconstitutional (the president assumed beyond-executive powers in the memo).

both are basically technicality issues.

The president didn't have the authority to order a new trial.

In other word, the world court's decision does not have jurisdiction over Texas courts- like I said. Bush felt there was a treaty obligation and tried to order a new trial- but he didn't have authority to do that without congressional approval.

Here's a link from the AP.

The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

But the Supreme Court said Monday that Texas could ignore the international court's ruling in favor of granting new hearings.

[Kralizec]

The ICJ basicly just ruled that the US is falling short of its treaty obligations. Bush tried to do something about, ignoring the boundaries of his own authority and was ruled down because of it. Where's the problem of sovereignty?

[KrooK]

This decision does not bind into international law. Since XIX century there is precedent that if country sign international agreement, it has to respect it - no matter what says his inner law (I think Alabama ship case).
So now every country can demand from USA respect treaty or they can just stop respect it too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, and if the US doesn't respect this treaty people can start disrespecting others in the US has signed. Mind, you extradite people from our country without burdan of proof while your Congress refuses to validate your end of the agreement.

If you want to be isolationist don't expect others to play ball.

[Papewaio]

International treaties like most diplomatic moves rely heavily on reciprocity "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours".

So be thankful this isn't removing consular help to foreign citizens in the US as the reciprocal arrangement would not be very nice.

[Don Corleone]

This is more a matter of SCOTUS standing on form on the wording of treaty ratification and enforcement, that it requires approval by the Senate. I don't think they were trying to say that local jurisdictions, like the traffic court in Butte, Montana, have the right to flaunt international law.

I'm pretty sure the Senate will pass a measure to back the president's move and we're back to square one.

[Big_John]

Basically my point.

florid statements like about sovereignty and jurisdiction confuse the issue.

The president didn't have the authority to order a new trial.

a separation of powers issue.

In other word, the world court's decision does not have jurisdiction over Texas courts- like I said. Bush felt there was a treaty obligation and tried to order a new trial- but he didn't have authority to do that without congressional approval.

you are misstating the issue. this was simply a matter of procedure. the court is making no ruling about primacy of law.

Here's a link from the AP.

The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

But the Supreme Court said Monday that Texas could ignore the international court's ruling in favor of granting new hearings.

this is very sloppy wording by the AP. the ICJ ruling is from 2004 in a different case, avena, in which medellín was one of the people that prompted mexico to petition the ICJ.

if anti-UN/anti-world court types really want to find something resembling a contest of this particular international law vs national law, sanchez-llamas v oregon is a lot more pertinent. in that case the supreme court states the the avena ruling is not binding on the supreme court. but even there it's still basically a technical issue about how treaties operate.

So be thankful this isn't removing consular help to foreign citizens in the US as the reciprocal arrangement would not be very nice.

bush did withdraw from the optional protocol after avena, btw. though he said the US would still respect avena (via the memo at issue in this case).

I'm pretty sure the Senate will pass a measure to back the president's move and we're back to square one.

probably yes. the court is basically putting the onus back on the government to decide what to do about avena. bush's first strategy (withdraw from the OP, but memo-ize avena) didn't work, so we'll see if anything follows.

[Xiahou]

you are misstating the issue. this was simply a matter of procedure. the court is making no ruling about primacy of law.

I've still got to disagree here.

First, the majority held that the Avena judgment is not enforceable as domestic law.

That alone shows that the ICJ has no jurisdiction in the US. Part of the decision was over Bush's attempt to order a new trial. But the decision states that treaties have no bearing unless enacted in domestic law.

The idea that the ICJ's ruling should be binding by treaty was in fact part of the plaintiff's case:

"There didn't have to be legislation before Texas, and its local officials were obligated to provide notice in this case," Mr. Clement said, "and of course, it's their default on that treaty obligation by the state and local officials that has us in this predicament."

And again, this was rejected by the SCOTUS in its ruling.

Mr. Cruz characterized that as an intolerable affront to sovereignty, and he found some sympathy on the court.

Justice Scalia argued that to put the World Court ruling into force, Mr. Bush could have asked Congress for legislation.

That touched on a central dispute: Are states obliged to obey international treaties, and if so, who has the authority to compel them to do so and to review their compliance? The president? The U.S. Supreme Court? International tribunals?

link

I don't really understand how some can claim this ruling doesn't speak to the issue of national sovereignty vs international law- the text of both the arguments and the ruling itself does just that. This was no "technicality".

[Big_John]

That alone shows that the ICJ has no jurisdiction in the US.

there was never a question of ICJ jurisdiction in US state courts. the ICJ judgments are between nations alone, not indiviuals or local polities. texas can't enforce international law: from an international law perspective, there is no such thing as texas, just the US.

btw, many legal scholars have interpreted the particular judgment in avena, and legrand before it, as purposefully vague so as to respect sovereignty of parties to the treaty. just fyi.

But the decision states that treaties have no bearing unless enacted in domestic law.

only non-self-executing treaties.

The idea that the ICJ's ruling should be binding by treaty was in fact part of the plaintiff's case

irrelevant.

I don't really understand how some can claim this ruling doesn't speak to the issue of national sovereignty vs international law- the text of both the arguments and the ruling itself does just that. This was no "technicality".

the texts of the arguments are irrelevant. all kinds of wildly overblown crap finds its way into arguments. the ruling is hardly a klaxon of 'sovereignty vs international law', not sure where you are getting that idea.

the first issue can be phrased as, "is the convention obligation to 'undertake and comply' self-executing?" if not, as the court says, then texas has no obligation under federal law to comply with the ICJs ruling. a technical matter of operation of treaties. if the court ruled that the US had no obligation to comply with avena, that would be an issue of sovereignty. but the court is explicit:

No one disputes that the Avena decision-a decision that flows from the treaties through which the United States submitted to ICJ jurisdiction with respect to Vienna Convention disputes-constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States.

look at stevens' concurring opinion. he made it even more clear that the US (and TX by extension) are still obliged to comply with avena. if he thought the majority was implying otherwise, he would have mentioned it. he probably would have flipped out actually.. not to mention the dissenting justices.

[Xiahou]

The arguments of a case are irrelevant? Someone should've told the lawyers- they could have stayed home.
The court heard the argument, but found it unpersuasive. In fact, they found that Avena was not domestically enforceable in their ruling- which is the whole point.

look at stevens' concurring opinion.

It's a concurring opinion- that means he arrived at the same decision, but by a different process. It doesn't show anything "more clear" in regards to the majority opinion. Its purpose isn't to refine the majority opinion, it is to state how he, while arriving at the same ultimate decision, did so via a different thought process than the majority. Supreme Court justices don't "flip out" in their opinions.

The fact that the majority found that Avena did not hold as enforceable law shows that while Steven's opinion apparently did, shows that it in no way refined the majority opinion, but was his alone. In fact, if you look at Breyer's dissent, he indeed argues that the Avena decision by the ICJ should have been binding. Clearly this decision touched on sovereignty. It was an important decision and no "technicality".

edit: pdf link to the decision.

Edit again: Here's a link from DukeLaw that should further prove my point:

This case presents the following questions:

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?

[Furious Mental]

Not really. If you read the reasons for why they came to that conclusion it is essentially based on the text of the Convention, the UN Charter, and an addendum called the Optional Protocol, and is to the effect that even as between states decisions of the ICJ grants no remedy, they simply give cause for further diplomatic action. A treaty which was worded differently could, on the same approach by the court, produce a totally different result.

"The Court’s holding does not call into question the ordinaryenforcement of foreign judgments. An agreement to abide by the result
of an international adjudication can be a treaty obligation like any other, so long as the agreement is consistent with the Constitution.
In addition, Congress is up to the task of implementing nonself-
executing treaties, even those involving complex commercial disputes.
Medellín contends that domestic courts generally give effect toforeign judgments, but the judgment Medellín asks us to enforce is hardly typical: It would enjoin the operation of state law and forcethe State to take action to “review and reconside[r]” his case. Foreign judgments awarding injunctive relief against private parties, let alone sovereign States, “are not generally entitled to enforcement.” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States§481, Comment b, p. 595 (1986). Pp. 24–27."

[Big_John]

Xiahou, have you studied law? your arguments lead me to believe that you haven't. no offense intended.

Furious Mental is correct. this is a mechanical issue regard self-executing vs non-self-executing treaties, and interpretation thereof. you could say the ruling deals with the supremacy clause and treaty powers but not sovereignty of nations.

something dealing with international law vs sovereignty of nations may emerge out of this decision and the political reaction to it, but the ruling doesn't (needn't) go that far.

[Strike For The South]

[Xiahou]

Xiahou, have you studied law? your arguments lead me to believe that you haven't. no offense intended.

Relevance?

Furious Mental is correct. this is a mechanical issue regard self-executing vs non-self-executing treaties, and interpretation thereof. you could say the ruling deals with the supremacy clause and treaty powers but not sovereignty of nations.

There's no clear "mechanical" standard for self-executing treaties- if there were, it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. This particular case, in part, answered the question:
"Are state courts bound by the Constitution to honor the undisputed international obligation of the United States to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases that the judgment addressed?"

Breyer clearly felt that the ICJ decision to hold new trials should be respected. The majority saw otherwise. You're misrepresenting this as a simple technicality. What would the implications been had Breyer's view held out?

Again, Furious Mental's quote bears out my assertion:

but the judgment Medellín asks us to enforce is hardly typical: It would enjoin the operation of state law and force the State to take action to “review and reconside[r]” his case. Foreign judgments awarding injunctive relief against private parties, let alone sovereign States, “are not generally entitled to enforcement.” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States§481, Comment b, p. 595 (1986). Pp. 24–27.

Breyer's view was completely out of phase with this and would've had obvious and far-reaching implications had his view been in the majority.

[Big_John]

Relevance?

the relevance was in the follow-up statement, obviously. bluntly, you don't seem to know what you're talking about with respect to law and how to read rulings. if this ruling dealt with sovereignty, believe me it would be very explicit. they wouldn't obfuscate the issue behind treaty mechanics.

There's no clear "mechanical" standard for self-executing treaties- if there were, it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court.

yes, it's a matter of interpretation. no one said there was a clear standard.

This particular case, in part, answered the question:
"Are state courts bound by the Constitution to honor the undisputed international obligation of the United States to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases that the judgment addressed?"

that's one brief, why not refer to the actual ruling? in any case the answer to that question is, "no, because the treaty at issue is a non-self-executing treaty".

Breyer clearly felt that the ICJ decision to hold new trials should be respected. The majority saw otherwise. You're misrepresenting this as a simple technicality. What would the implications been had Breyer's view held out?

Again, Furious Mental's quote bears out my assertion:Breyer's view was completely out of phase with this and would've had obvious and far-reaching implications had his view been in the majority.

the implications would be a matter of treaty power, supremacy clause, and operation of self-executing vs non-self-executing treaties, not sovereignty.

simply put, this is not an issue of competing bodies of law, it is a case of interpretation of treaty language.

[Xiahou]

you don't seem to know what you're talking about

Ah, that's what I expected- little more than an appeal to authority. I don't know what I'm talking about, you do. Therefore I must be wrong. If you're the expert that you're implying you are, you should be able to do a better job of supporting your argument without resorting to "you don't know what you're talking about".

yes, it's a matter of interpretation. no one said there was a clear standard.

You did- you claimed it was both "mechanical" and a "technicality", neither of those terms are suggestive of something open to wide interpretation and nuance.

that's one brief, why not refer to the actual ruling?

You can put yourself forward as an expert, I'll go with Duke Law. Surely their view has as much weight as your opinion, yes?

in any case the answer to that question is, "no, because the treaty at issue is a non-self-executing treaty".

And why? The answer is in Furious Mental's quote.

simply put, this is not an issue of competing bodies of law, it is a case of interpretation of treaty language.

"It would enjoin the operation of state law and force the State to take action to “review and reconside[r]” his case. Foreign judgments awarding injunctive relief against private parties, let alone sovereign States, “are not generally entitled to enforcement.”
Forcing the state to take action over it's own laws and procedures has nothing to do with it's sovereignty? I don't see how you can say that- and I don't think many would agree with you. The decision of the ICJ and it's implications via treaty were in direct opposition to Texas law. At it's core, it was about whether a state's law could be superseded by an ICJ decision, as Breyer felt, and if Bush had the authority to order a new trial on his own. In both instances, the SCOTUS said no.

[Big_John]

Ah, that's what I expected- little more than an appeal to authority. I don't know what I'm talking about, you do. Therefore I must be wrong. If you're the expert that you're implying you are, you should be able to do a better job of supporting your argument without resorting to "you don't know what you're talking about".

no appeal of any sort, simply a statement of opinion based on observation. it's my opinion that you'd present better arguments if you had some training in law. i'm no expert, just a 2L, but your arguments are generally outside the scope of the holding.

nice cropping of my words, btw. but i'll repeat: you don't seem to know what you're talking about with respect to law and how to read rulings. if this ruling dealt with sovereignty, believe me it would be very explicit. they wouldn't obfuscate the issue behind treaty mechanics.

You did- you claimed it was both "mechanical" and a "technicality", neither of those terms are suggestive of something open to wide interpretation and nuance.

you are mistaken. legal opinions can go on for pages about the mechanical and technical aspects of procedural and substantive law. take a first-year con law or civ pro class and you'll see what i mean.

You can put yourself forward as an expert, I'll go with Duke Law. Surely their view has as much weight as your opinion, yes?

see above. and yeah, you can 'go with' whatever secondary source you wish. i'm happy reading the ruling. besides, how does your duke law link support your contention of a sovereignty case? how many times is sovereignty even mentioned in that case brief?

And why? The answer is in Furious Mental's quote.
"It would enjoin the operation of state law and force the State to take action to “review and reconside[r]” his case. Foreign judgments awarding injunctive relief against private parties, let alone sovereign States, “are not generally entitled to enforcement.”

Forcing the state to take action over it's own laws and procedures has nothing to do with it's sovereignty? I don't see how you can say that- and I don't think many would agree with you.

actually, it doesn't seem that anyone in this thread is agreeing with your position.. but i wouldn't appeal to that kind of authority anyway.

you can try to frame the issue however you want, but the ruling is clear: this is an issue of interpretation of treaty language and operation of non-self-executing treaties. the court is simply arguing that the ICJ ruling in avena doesn’t take immediate legal effect in domestic court, i.e., they’re not self-executing. if you want to believe that's a sovereignty issue, you have fun with that.

The decision of the ICJ and it's implications via treaty were in direct opposition to Texas law. At it's core, it was about whether a state's law could be superseded by an ICJ decision, as Breyer felt, and if Bush had the authority to order a new trial on his own. In both instances, the SCOTUS said no.

again, the ruling is rather explicit:

In sum, while the ICJ's judgment in Avena creates an international law obligation on the part of the United States, it does not of its own force constitute binding federal law that pre-empts state restrictions on the filing of successive habeas petitions.

the phrase before the comma means the ICJ's ruling is not in contention. there is no conflict of supremacy between international law and texas law; it's a matter of the mechanics of treaty execution. the phrase after the comma is a result of the operation of non-self-executing treaties.

you can continue interpret this as a matter of sovereignty. i see no merit in that contention, yet.

[Tribesman]

Classic

[Furious Mental]

Like I said, the guts of the majority judgment in relation to the independent enforceability of the ICJ ruling dwelt the nature of the treaty in question and implied that a different treaty could have the effect sought after by the dead guy. If it had simply been an issue of the enforcement of judgments under treaties generally all the analysis of the instrument would have been totally redundant. It seems to me that the substance of the decision on that particular issue, in one sentence, is that you can't get rights from a judgment that isn't meant to give you any. However broad statements are being made in the American media about "national sovereignty" because that excites people's opinions, whereas construction of a text does not. On top of that, it relates to execution of a murderer. I get the feeling that if the case related to enforceability of a ruling of an international commercial tribunal on the quantum of damages for breach of a contract for the distribution and sale of widgets it would get alot less attention, in spite of the great importance of widgets to modern civilisation.

[Big_John]

I get the feeling that if the case related to enforceability of a ruling of an international commercial tribunal on the quantum of damages for breach of a contract for the distribution and sale of widgets it would get alot less attention, in spite of the great importance of widgets to modern civilisation.

ah, good ol' widgets.

btw, it also helps that the convicted are mexicans, and the state in question is (nobody messes with) texas.

[Xiahou]

Big_John, you're welcome to stand on your alleged expertise, but I've read a number of commentaries on the case. Most who think that the case was well-decided speak to it as an affirmation of sovereignty. Those who think it was wrongly-decided fear it as a shirking of treaty obligations by the US.

What I haven't heard from anywhere, except you, is that the case was an inconsequential technicality. Those I've read think that, for good or ill, see this ruling having far reaching consequences.

Supreme Court to Examine State Sovereignty Fight Over Mexican National on Death Row

Supreme Court Strikes Blow for U.S. Constitution and U.S. Sovereignty

Supreme Court Defends American Sovereignty Against International Assault

SCOTUS Rejects Authority of World Court

Medellin v. Texas: A case of more than murder

The central issue in the case was whether the World Court can bind the U.S. justice system. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court emphatically concluded that the World Court has no such authority. That decision was correct, and it preserves our nation's fundamental sovereignty.

And finally, a link from Cornell Law:

In Medellín v. Texas,the President’s authority over foreign affairs and the binding effect of international treaties on state courts are at issue. The outcome of this case will clarify the balance of power among the federal branches as well as the federal government’s future dealings with foreign nations. A decision for Medellín may authorize the President to set aside state laws and final judicial determinations which are contrary to the United States’ international obligations. On the other hand, a decision for the State of Texas will maintain state sovereignty and judicial independence but potentially discourage foreign nations from entering into treaties with the United States.

Really, I could go on- the Internet is full of discussion on this "technicality". But I fully expect that you'll obstinately refuse to acknowledge that this case had anything to do with state sovereignty and will still weakly defend your argument by claiming I'm out of my league, and therefore, should automatically defer to you. So there's really no point in continuing is there?

[Big_John]

only you allege my expertise Xiahou.

keep posting secondary sources and political blog ejaculations. i'll simply read the ruling.

btw, in law very few technicalities are inconsequential.

[Geoffrey S]

Interestingly, even those blogs and the like emphasizing this as a triumph of US sovereignty against international courts end up not actually mentioning this in the court rulings - rather, limiting themselves to what was in fact stated, that Bush violated state sovereignty and violated his constitutional limits. Nothing about the ICJ ruling, just that if anyone is to affirm its legitimacy it is Congress. No more, no less.

[Tribesman]

This is just too funny , then again its not quite as funny as some of the rants on Xiahous links

But I fully expect that you'll obstinately refuse to acknowledge that this case had anything to do with state sovereignty and will still weakly defend your argument by claiming I'm out of my league, and therefore, should automatically defer to you. So there's really no point in continuing is there?

Well I see you are ever so slightly completely confused , that would be because it has bugger all to do with state soveriegnty ,all this boils down to is that the executive didn't follow the correct process as laid out under your constitution , if the correct process had been followed then Texas even if its representatives and citizens opposed the measure would be bound by the measure . Its the price Texans pay to be part of the United States .