US Supreme Court, Medellín v. Texas

More than an Assiduous Building Inspector?

John K. Gamble, Jr., Christine M. Giuliano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The US Supreme Court case of José Ernesto Medellín, Petitioner v. Texas, decided on 25 March 2008, has generally been seen as a US refusal to follow unambiguous treaty provisions. There has not been such a strong reaction to US behaviour relative to specific treaty obligations since the 1992 Alvarez-Machain case. The Supreme Court majority (six votes to three) held that ‘neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law’. The uncomfortable – and to many illogical – conclusion reached by the Court was that even though Avena is an ‘international law obligation on the part of the United States’, it is not binding law within the United States even in the light of an explicit presidential order. While the result may be disappointing, the case should be understood in the context of a legal system that (i) makes treaties part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’; (ii) has developed a complicated concept of self-executing treaties; and (iii) can be hesitant to direct states (sub-national units) to follow presidential directives even on matters of foreign policy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)151-169
Number of pages19
JournalLeiden Journal of International Law
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009

Fingerprint

treaty
Supreme Court
obligation
memorandum
Law
federal law
legal system
international law
foreign policy
voter
president

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Political Science and International Relations
  • Law

Cite this

@article{b1228625c64845a3ada3e68c39d76cc9,
title = "US Supreme Court, Medell{\'i}n v. Texas: More than an Assiduous Building Inspector?",
abstract = "The US Supreme Court case of Jos{\'e} Ernesto Medell{\'i}n, Petitioner v. Texas, decided on 25 March 2008, has generally been seen as a US refusal to follow unambiguous treaty provisions. There has not been such a strong reaction to US behaviour relative to specific treaty obligations since the 1992 Alvarez-Machain case. The Supreme Court majority (six votes to three) held that ‘neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law’. The uncomfortable – and to many illogical – conclusion reached by the Court was that even though Avena is an ‘international law obligation on the part of the United States’, it is not binding law within the United States even in the light of an explicit presidential order. While the result may be disappointing, the case should be understood in the context of a legal system that (i) makes treaties part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’; (ii) has developed a complicated concept of self-executing treaties; and (iii) can be hesitant to direct states (sub-national units) to follow presidential directives even on matters of foreign policy.",
author = "{Gamble, Jr.}, {John K.} and Giuliano, {Christine M.}",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0922156508005670",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "151--169",
journal = "Leiden Journal of International Law",
issn = "0922-1565",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

US Supreme Court, Medellín v. Texas : More than an Assiduous Building Inspector? / Gamble, Jr., John K.; Giuliano, Christine M.

In: Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, No. 1, 01.01.2009, p. 151-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - US Supreme Court, Medellín v. Texas

T2 - More than an Assiduous Building Inspector?

AU - Gamble, Jr., John K.

AU - Giuliano, Christine M.

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - The US Supreme Court case of José Ernesto Medellín, Petitioner v. Texas, decided on 25 March 2008, has generally been seen as a US refusal to follow unambiguous treaty provisions. There has not been such a strong reaction to US behaviour relative to specific treaty obligations since the 1992 Alvarez-Machain case. The Supreme Court majority (six votes to three) held that ‘neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law’. The uncomfortable – and to many illogical – conclusion reached by the Court was that even though Avena is an ‘international law obligation on the part of the United States’, it is not binding law within the United States even in the light of an explicit presidential order. While the result may be disappointing, the case should be understood in the context of a legal system that (i) makes treaties part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’; (ii) has developed a complicated concept of self-executing treaties; and (iii) can be hesitant to direct states (sub-national units) to follow presidential directives even on matters of foreign policy.

AB - The US Supreme Court case of José Ernesto Medellín, Petitioner v. Texas, decided on 25 March 2008, has generally been seen as a US refusal to follow unambiguous treaty provisions. There has not been such a strong reaction to US behaviour relative to specific treaty obligations since the 1992 Alvarez-Machain case. The Supreme Court majority (six votes to three) held that ‘neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law’. The uncomfortable – and to many illogical – conclusion reached by the Court was that even though Avena is an ‘international law obligation on the part of the United States’, it is not binding law within the United States even in the light of an explicit presidential order. While the result may be disappointing, the case should be understood in the context of a legal system that (i) makes treaties part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’; (ii) has developed a complicated concept of self-executing treaties; and (iii) can be hesitant to direct states (sub-national units) to follow presidential directives even on matters of foreign policy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84967407065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84967407065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0922156508005670

DO - 10.1017/S0922156508005670

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 151

EP - 169

JO - Leiden Journal of International Law

JF - Leiden Journal of International Law

SN - 0922-1565

IS - 1

ER -