Medellín v. Texas
Encyclopedia
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S.
491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress
has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice
are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress
or Constitutional
authority, the President of the United States
lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.
on October 24, 1945. Article 92 of the Charter established the International Court of Justice. The ICJ Statute, which established the procedures and jurisdiction of the ICJ and was attached to the U.N. Charter, delineates two ways in which a nation may consent to ICJ jurisdiction: It may consent generally to jurisdiction on any question arising under a treaty or general international law, or it may consent specifically to jurisdiction over a particular category of cases or disputes pursuant to a separate treaty.
In 1969, the United States ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
of April 24, 1963, and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention of April 24, 1963. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention requires that foreign nationals who are arrested or detained be given notice "without delay" of their right to have their embassy or consulate notified of that arrest. The Optional Protocol provides that disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention "shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice".
The United States withdrew from general ICJ jurisdiction on October 7, 1985.
On June 24, 1993, José Ernesto Medellín (an 18-year-old Mexican
citizen) and several other gang members participated in the murder of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña
, when they rape
d a 14-year-old and 16-year-old girl for an hour in Houston, Texas
. Both girls were killed to prevent them from identifying their assailants. Medellín strangled one of the girls to death with her own shoelaces. Hours after Medellin's arrest he admitted to his part in the crime and boasted of having "virgin blood" on his underpants.
Medellín was arrested five days later, and signed a confession after being given his Miranda warning
. Texas
authorities did not, however, advise him of his right to contact his consulate under the terms of the Vienna Convention. Medellín was convicted of rape and murder
, and sentenced to death
in 1997. He appealed, and raised the issue of his Vienna Convention rights as part of his appeal, but his conviction was upheld by the trial court and by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
.
In 2003, Medellín filed a petition for habeas corpus
in United States district court
. The district court denied relief, holding that Medellín's Vienna Convention claim should have been raised at trial (not on appeal) and he had failed to show prejudice against his case arising from the Vienna Convention violation.
Also in 2003, Mexico brought suit against the United States in the ICJ, claiming that the United States had failed to notify 51 defendants (all Mexican citizens having been accused in state courts of committing crimes in the U.S.) of their Vienna Convention right to notify their consulate. Medellín was one of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the suit. The following year, the ICJ ruled in Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.)
, 2004 I.C.J. 12
(Judgment of March 31) (Avena) that the 51 Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences.
Medellín's appeal now found its way to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
. Medellín raised the ICJ's ruling in Avena before the Fifth Circuit, but the federal appellate court denied relief.
On March 7, 2005, after the ICJ's judgment in Avena, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol.
Medellín now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari.
Before the Supreme Court could hear the case, however, President George W. Bush
issued a Memorandum to the United States Attorney General
. In the Memorandum, President Bush asserted authority under the Constitution and the various laws of the United States to order states to review the convictions and sentences of foreign nationals who had not been advised of their Vienna Convention rights. Because of the President's Memorandum, Medellín filed a second case in state court for habeas corpus. The U.S. Supreme Court then dismissed Medellín's first petition for certiorari in a per curiam decision, Medellín v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (Medellín I).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellín's second appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time.
As Medellín's second appeal was under consideration in Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
, 548 U.S. 331
(2006). Although the decision did not involve individuals named in the Avena judgment, the Court held the ICJ's ruling in Avena to be in error. Absent a clear and express statement to the contrary in either the Vienna Convention and the Optional Protocol, the Court held in Sanchez-Llamas, the procedural rules of each nation govern the implementation of the treaty. Since Sanchez-Llamas' rights had been observed under both state and federal law as well as various rulings of the Supreme Court, the High Court upheld his conviction.
The majority held that the Avena judgment is not enforceable as domestic law. A treaty is not binding domestic law, it said, unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it is "self-executing." None of the relevant treaties—the Optional Protocol, the U.N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute—were self-executing, and no implementing legislation had been enacted, the Court found.
The Court also rejected Medellín's claim that Article 94 of the U.N. Charter requires the United States to "undertake to comply" with the ICJ ruling. Chief Justice Roberts observed that Article 94(2) of the Charter provides for explicit enforcement for noncompliance by referral to the United Nations Security Council, and for appeals to be made only by the aggrieved state (not an individual such as Medellín). Even so, the United States clearly reserved the right to veto any Security Council resolutions. The majority also held that the ICJ statute contained in the U.N. Charter also forbade individuals from being parties to suits before the International Court. The ICJ statute is a pact between nations, Justice Roberts said, and only nations (not individuals) may seek its judgment.
Relying on Sanchez-Llamas, the Supreme Court then held that, absent a clear and express statement to the contrary in the relevant treaties, domestic procedural rules govern a treaty's implementation.
The Court also rejected Medellín's argument that the President's February 28, 2005 Memorandum was binding on state courts. The Court relied on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
, 343 U. S. 579
(1952), recognizing that "plainly compelling interests" were at stake in the Medellín case. Yet:
The majority concluded that neither condition had been met. Neither the government nor the defendant had cited any statutory authority which authorized the President to act. Instead, the President claimed that the Optional Protocol and U.N. Charter implicitly gave him the authority to act. The Court disagreed: "The President has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one is not among them." The President also claimed that Congress had acquiesced in the exercise of presidential power by failing to act following the resolution of prior ICJ controversies. But, Roberts held, "A review of the Executive's actions in those prior cases, however, cannot support the claim that Congress acquiesced in this particular exercise of Presidential authority, for none of them remotely involved transforming an international obligation into domestic law and thereby displacing state law." The President also founded his action on "related" statutory responsibilities and an "established role" in litigating foreign policy concerns. But none of the examples cited in the government's brief supported that conclusion, the majority ruled, and none of the examples remotely indicated that the President may pre-empt state law.
The government had also claimed that the Memorandum was an exercise of the President's authority to resolve international claims under his executive authority. The Court recognized that this was a long-standing practice "never-before questioned." But relying on Dames & Moore v. Regan
, 453 U.S. 654
(1981), the Court observed that "[p]ast practice does not, by itself, create power." Prior uses of executive authority to settle international disputes all occurred in narrow circumstances, and did not involve the complete setting aside of state law, as the defendant sought in the present case.
Finally, Medellín argued that the President's Memorandum was a valid exercise of presidential power based on the president's authority to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", as granted in the Article II, §3 of the United States Constitution. The majority observed that the government refused to rely on Article II, §3, which undercut Medellín's claim. Justice Roberts then concluded that, since the ICJ's decision in Avena was not domestic law, the "take care" clause did not apply.
The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was affirmed.
One similar example Breyer cited was the 1796 case Ware v. Hylton
, which, Breyer wrote, was illustrative of what "the Founders meant when they wrote [in the Supremacy Clause
of the United States Constitution
] that 'all Treaties ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'" In Ware v. Hylton, the Supreme Court had agreed with a British creditor that a provision of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which had been ratified by the United States's Congress of the Confederation
, overruled a Virginia state law regarding the repayment of debts to Britons; and, as the treaty was "addressed to the Judicial Branch", Congress had not had to enact a domestic law enforcing the treaty provision.
rejected calls from Mexico
and Washington, D.C.
to delay the execution, citing the torture, rape and strangulation of two teenage girls in Houston 15 years before as just cause for the death penalty.
United States Reports
The United States Reports are the official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinions of the court in each case, prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are...
491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands...
are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress
Act of Congress
An Act of Congress is a statute enacted by government with a legislature named "Congress," such as the United States Congress or the Congress of the Philippines....
or Constitutional
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
authority, the President of the United States
President of the United States
The President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces....
lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.
History
The United States ratified the United Nations CharterUnited Nations Charter
The Charter of the United Nations is the foundational treaty of the international organization called the United Nations. It was signed at the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center in San Francisco, United States, on 26 June 1945, by 50 of the 51 original member countries...
on October 24, 1945. Article 92 of the Charter established the International Court of Justice. The ICJ Statute, which established the procedures and jurisdiction of the ICJ and was attached to the U.N. Charter, delineates two ways in which a nation may consent to ICJ jurisdiction: It may consent generally to jurisdiction on any question arising under a treaty or general international law, or it may consent specifically to jurisdiction over a particular category of cases or disputes pursuant to a separate treaty.
In 1969, the United States ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 is an international treaty that defines a framework for consular relations between independent countries...
of April 24, 1963, and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention of April 24, 1963. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention requires that foreign nationals who are arrested or detained be given notice "without delay" of their right to have their embassy or consulate notified of that arrest. The Optional Protocol provides that disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention "shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice".
The United States withdrew from general ICJ jurisdiction on October 7, 1985.
On June 24, 1993, José Ernesto Medellín (an 18-year-old Mexican
Mexico
The United Mexican States , commonly known as Mexico , is a federal constitutional republic in North America. It is bordered on the north by the United States; on the south and west by the Pacific Ocean; on the southeast by Guatemala, Belize, and the Caribbean Sea; and on the east by the Gulf of...
citizen) and several other gang members participated in the murder of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña
Murder of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña
The murder of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña, two teenage girls from Houston, Texas, occurred on June 24, 1993. The murder of the two girls made headlines in Texas newspapers due to the nature of the crime and the new law resulting from the murder that allows families of the victims to view the...
, when they rape
Rape
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. The...
d a 14-year-old and 16-year-old girl for an hour in Houston, Texas
Houston, Texas
Houston is the fourth-largest city in the United States, and the largest city in the state of Texas. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the city had a population of 2.1 million people within an area of . Houston is the seat of Harris County and the economic center of , which is the ...
. Both girls were killed to prevent them from identifying their assailants. Medellín strangled one of the girls to death with her own shoelaces. Hours after Medellin's arrest he admitted to his part in the crime and boasted of having "virgin blood" on his underpants.
Medellín was arrested five days later, and signed a confession after being given his Miranda warning
Miranda warning
The Miranda warning is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. In Miranda v...
. Texas
Texas
Texas is the second largest U.S. state by both area and population, and the largest state by area in the contiguous United States.The name, based on the Caddo word "Tejas" meaning "friends" or "allies", was applied by the Spanish to the Caddo themselves and to the region of their settlement in...
authorities did not, however, advise him of his right to contact his consulate under the terms of the Vienna Convention. Medellín was convicted of rape and murder
Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide...
, and sentenced to death
Capital punishment
Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally...
in 1997. He appealed, and raised the issue of his Vienna Convention rights as part of his appeal, but his conviction was upheld by the trial court and by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for all criminal matters in the State of Texas, United States. The Court, which is based in the Supreme Court Building in Downtown Austin, is composed of a Presiding Judge and eight judges....
.
In 2003, Medellín filed a petition for habeas corpus
Habeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
in United States district court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas is the Federal district court with jurisdiction over the southern part of Texas...
. The district court denied relief, holding that Medellín's Vienna Convention claim should have been raised at trial (not on appeal) and he had failed to show prejudice against his case arising from the Vienna Convention violation.
Also in 2003, Mexico brought suit against the United States in the ICJ, claiming that the United States had failed to notify 51 defendants (all Mexican citizens having been accused in state courts of committing crimes in the U.S.) of their Vienna Convention right to notify their consulate. Medellín was one of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the suit. The following year, the ICJ ruled in Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.)
Mexico v. United States of America
Mexico v. United States of America, formally Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, was a case before the International Court of Justice of the United Nations...
, 2004 I.C.J. 12
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(Judgment of March 31) (Avena) that the 51 Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences.
Medellín's appeal now found its way to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Louisiana* Middle District of Louisiana...
. Medellín raised the ICJ's ruling in Avena before the Fifth Circuit, but the federal appellate court denied relief.
On March 7, 2005, after the ICJ's judgment in Avena, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol.
Medellín now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari.
Before the Supreme Court could hear the case, however, President George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George Walker Bush is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States, from 2001 to 2009. Before that, he was the 46th Governor of Texas, having served from 1995 to 2000....
issued a Memorandum to the United States Attorney General
United States Attorney General
The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government...
. In the Memorandum, President Bush asserted authority under the Constitution and the various laws of the United States to order states to review the convictions and sentences of foreign nationals who had not been advised of their Vienna Convention rights. Because of the President's Memorandum, Medellín filed a second case in state court for habeas corpus. The U.S. Supreme Court then dismissed Medellín's first petition for certiorari in a per curiam decision, Medellín v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (Medellín I).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellín's second appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time.
As Medellín's second appeal was under consideration in Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which held that a state court did not have to exclude evidence admitted into court in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.- Facts :...
, 548 U.S. 331
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2006). Although the decision did not involve individuals named in the Avena judgment, the Court held the ICJ's ruling in Avena to be in error. Absent a clear and express statement to the contrary in either the Vienna Convention and the Optional Protocol, the Court held in Sanchez-Llamas, the procedural rules of each nation govern the implementation of the treaty. Since Sanchez-Llamas' rights had been observed under both state and federal law as well as various rulings of the Supreme Court, the High Court upheld his conviction.
Decision
Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the majority's opinion.The majority held that the Avena judgment is not enforceable as domestic law. A treaty is not binding domestic law, it said, unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it is "self-executing." None of the relevant treaties—the Optional Protocol, the U.N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute—were self-executing, and no implementing legislation had been enacted, the Court found.
The Court also rejected Medellín's claim that Article 94 of the U.N. Charter requires the United States to "undertake to comply" with the ICJ ruling. Chief Justice Roberts observed that Article 94(2) of the Charter provides for explicit enforcement for noncompliance by referral to the United Nations Security Council, and for appeals to be made only by the aggrieved state (not an individual such as Medellín). Even so, the United States clearly reserved the right to veto any Security Council resolutions. The majority also held that the ICJ statute contained in the U.N. Charter also forbade individuals from being parties to suits before the International Court. The ICJ statute is a pact between nations, Justice Roberts said, and only nations (not individuals) may seek its judgment.
Relying on Sanchez-Llamas, the Supreme Court then held that, absent a clear and express statement to the contrary in the relevant treaties, domestic procedural rules govern a treaty's implementation.
The Court also rejected Medellín's argument that the President's February 28, 2005 Memorandum was binding on state courts. The Court relied on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, , also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article...
, 343 U. S. 579
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1952), recognizing that "plainly compelling interests" were at stake in the Medellín case. Yet:
Such considerations, however, do not allow us to set aside first principles. The President's authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, 'must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'
The majority concluded that neither condition had been met. Neither the government nor the defendant had cited any statutory authority which authorized the President to act. Instead, the President claimed that the Optional Protocol and U.N. Charter implicitly gave him the authority to act. The Court disagreed: "The President has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one is not among them." The President also claimed that Congress had acquiesced in the exercise of presidential power by failing to act following the resolution of prior ICJ controversies. But, Roberts held, "A review of the Executive's actions in those prior cases, however, cannot support the claim that Congress acquiesced in this particular exercise of Presidential authority, for none of them remotely involved transforming an international obligation into domestic law and thereby displacing state law." The President also founded his action on "related" statutory responsibilities and an "established role" in litigating foreign policy concerns. But none of the examples cited in the government's brief supported that conclusion, the majority ruled, and none of the examples remotely indicated that the President may pre-empt state law.
The government had also claimed that the Memorandum was an exercise of the President's authority to resolve international claims under his executive authority. The Court recognized that this was a long-standing practice "never-before questioned." But relying on Dames & Moore v. Regan
Dames & Moore v. Regan
Dames & Moore v. Regan, was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with President Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12170, which froze Iranian assets in the United States on November 14, 1979 in response to the Iran hostage crisis which began on November 4, 1979.-Holding:After the inauguration of...
, 453 U.S. 654
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1981), the Court observed that "[p]ast practice does not, by itself, create power." Prior uses of executive authority to settle international disputes all occurred in narrow circumstances, and did not involve the complete setting aside of state law, as the defendant sought in the present case.
Finally, Medellín argued that the President's Memorandum was a valid exercise of presidential power based on the president's authority to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", as granted in the Article II, §3 of the United States Constitution. The majority observed that the government refused to rely on Article II, §3, which undercut Medellín's claim. Justice Roberts then concluded that, since the ICJ's decision in Avena was not domestic law, the "take care" clause did not apply.
The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was affirmed.
Justice John Paul Stevens concurrence
Justice John Paul Stevens concurred with the majority, but in his concurring opinion he stated that even though he concurs with the result of majority he thinks "this case presents a closer question than the Court's opinion allows." He concludes that the Supreme Court cannot enforce the I.C.J. opinion in Avena. To support that conclusion he maintains that "terms of the United Nations Charter do not necessarily incorporate international judgments into domestic law."[37]Dissent
Justice Breyer wrote in the dissent that in his view, the ICJ treaty was "self-executing", based on a reading of other treaties that had gone into effect without additional Congressional action; and therefore, he wrote, "I believe the treaty obligations, and hence the judgment [of the ICJ], resting as it does upon the consent of the United States to the ICJ's jurisdiction, bind the courts no less than would 'an act of the [federal] legislature.'"One similar example Breyer cited was the 1796 case Ware v. Hylton
Ware v. Hylton
Ware v. Hylton is the short name of a United States Supreme Court case where a divided court ruled that an article in the Treaty of Paris, which provided that debtors on both sides should meet no lawful impediment when recovering bona fide debts, took precedence and overruled a Virginia law passed...
, which, Breyer wrote, was illustrative of what "the Founders meant when they wrote [in the Supremacy Clause
Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S...
of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
] that 'all Treaties ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'" In Ware v. Hylton, the Supreme Court had agreed with a British creditor that a provision of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which had been ratified by the United States's Congress of the Confederation
Congress of the Confederation
The Congress of the Confederation or the United States in Congress Assembled was the governing body of the United States of America that existed from March 1, 1781, to March 4, 1789. It comprised delegates appointed by the legislatures of the states. It was the immediate successor to the Second...
, overruled a Virginia state law regarding the repayment of debts to Britons; and, as the treaty was "addressed to the Judicial Branch", Congress had not had to enact a domestic law enforcing the treaty provision.
Execution
Medellín was executed at 9:57pm on August 5, 2008 after his last-minute appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court. Governor Rick PerryRick Perry
James Richard "Rick" Perry is the 47th and current Governor of Texas. A Republican, Perry was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry was elected to full...
rejected calls from Mexico
Mexico
The United Mexican States , commonly known as Mexico , is a federal constitutional republic in North America. It is bordered on the north by the United States; on the south and west by the Pacific Ocean; on the southeast by Guatemala, Belize, and the Caribbean Sea; and on the east by the Gulf of...
and Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington, "the District", or simply D.C., is the capital of the United States. On July 16, 1790, the United States Congress approved the creation of a permanent national capital as permitted by the U.S. Constitution....
to delay the execution, citing the torture, rape and strangulation of two teenage girls in Houston 15 years before as just cause for the death penalty.
See also
External links
- [ Slip opinion of the case on the U.S. Supreme Court Web site]