The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Granted: Friday, December 10, 2004
Argument: Monday, March 28, 2005
Decision: Monday, May 23, 2005
Issues: Judicial Power, Writ Improvidently Granted

Advocates

R. Edward Cruz (argued the cause for Respondent)
Donald Francis Donovan (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Michael R. Dreeben (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

A Texas trial court sentenced Medellin, a Mexican citizen, to death for participating in the gang rape and murder of two girls in 1993. A state appeals court affirmed the conviction. Medellin then filed a state habeas corpus action, claiming that Texas failed to notify him of his right to counsel under the Vienna Convention. The state trial court and the appellate court rejected this claim. Medellin then filed a federal habeas petition, raising the Vienna Convention claim. The district court denied the petition. Medellin next appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Before the Fifth Circuit could rule, the International Court of Justice issued its decision in a case where Mexico had alleged the United States violated the Vienna Convention with respect to Medellin and other Mexican citizens facing the death penalty in the United States. The ICJ held that the United States had violated the individually enforceable rights guaranteed by Vienna and must reconsider the convictions. The Fifth Circuit rejected Medellin's appeal, citing its previous holdings that the Vienna Convention did not create an individually enforceable right. More than two months after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, President George W. Bush issued a memo requiring the United States to follow the ICJ's ruling by having state courts review the Mexicans' cases. Citing the memo and the ICJ ruling, Medellin filed a new appeal in a Texas state court.

Question

1. Is a federal court bound by the International Court of Justice's ruling that U.S. courts must reconsider a Mexican citizen's claim for relief under the Vienna Convention? 2. Should a federal court enforce an ICJ ruling?

Conclusion

In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that Medellin had not exhausted his state court appeals and sent the case back to Texas state court.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Dretke, 4 vote(s) against
Voted with the minority, joined O'Connor's dissent, joined Breyer's dissent
Stevens
Wrote a dissent, joined O'Connor's dissent
Souter
Wrote a regular concurrence
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent, joined O'Connor's dissent
Breyer
Wrote a dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Per Curiam with Argument

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_5928/>
(last visited ).