Supreme Court Case: Medellin V. Texas

Medellin v. Texas was a local court case that took place in 2007, and accomplished the Supreme Court ruling that non-local treaties, such as the Vienna Convention of the Laws treaty, were not self-executing, and therefore, were not binding upon state courts; in other words that if state courts decide not to honor such treaties, they were not forced to. Jose Ernesto Medellin was a Mexican citizen who was born in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico in March 4, 1975. Although he was born on the other side of the border, he spent most of his childhood in the United States. In June 1993, when he was 18 years old, he confessed to the rape and murder of Elizabeth Peña who was 16 years old at the time and Jennifer Ertman who was 14 years old, and were …show more content…
Texas gained popularity when, as aforementioned, Mexico decided to sue the United States for the breach of laws according to the signed protocol of the Vienna Convention treaty. When the ICJ ordered the United States to review previous convictions that had failed to give Mexican citizens their rights by presenting the “Avena” communication, president of the United States at the time, George W. Bush sent a memorandum to all states courts to reconsider such cases. According to John Crook, vice-president of the American Society of International Law, the Supreme Court ruled in the Medellin v. Texas case that this treaty did not have “domestic legal force” and that Texas was indeed not obligated to honor it since it was a treaty maintained by the U.S. (federal government), instead of state-wise (860). On the other hand, another very similar court case that previously took place is Oregon, in 2006, was the Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon case. Mr. Sanchez-Llamas was a Mexican citizen who was arrested for his role in a shootout with the police, similarly, he argued that his rights under the Article 36 of the Vienna Convention treaty (the same article as Medellin v. Texas) had been violated and therefore, his statement should not be integrated in his declaration as evidence. Moreover, the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court agreed that this treaty does not generate individual rights, but only rights of countries, meaning that the state did not have to honor the federal treaty. In a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito with Mr. Breyer, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Souter, and Mrs. Ginsburg disagreeing, the members of the Supreme Court ruled that states are allowed to deny Article 36 claims if they are not raised at the proper time. However, according to the Chicago-Kent College of Law, the dissenters claimed that the Convention did in fact create individual