Medellin v. Texas – SCOTUS – 2008 (Packet I – 33-45) Is Avena enforceable as domestic law in state court? AND Does Presidential Memo require states to review and reconsider claims w/o regard for state procedural rules?
NEITHER is federal law that PREEMPTS state limitations on habeas petitions.
UN Charter, article 94 – comply with judgments – commitment for POLITICAL branches to comply. NOT a directive to domestic courts
Why would one ever take a state to ICJ? Ridiculous interpretation.
Judgment recognizing commercial/property dispute different than enforcing INJUCTIVE relief
Authorized by Optional Protocol and UN Charter? NO. responsibility for making non-self executing treaty into domestic law is on CONGRESS.
Thus, falls into third Youngstowncategory
Note – P can’t make it self-executing, but COURT can make non-self executing.
Exercise of foreign affairs authority (like SE agreement?) – distinguishes Dames & Moore as being backed up by historical practice.
Here, no historical precedent
STEVENS Concurrence Cost of Texas complying is MINIMAL
Cost of refusing to respect ICJ are significant.
Leave up to TX – because Court’s judgment doesn’t foreclose future appropriate action by THEM
BREYER Dissent History of cases – self-executing treaty provisions are not uncommon or peculiar.
Very few treaties DO speak clearly on matter, so majority’s saying that the instruments don’t is ridiculous.
Cases suggest practical, context-specific criteria the court has used before.