The Supreme Court today released its opinion in Medellin v. Texas.

The Court ruled 6-3, in an opinion written by the Chief Justice, that the ICC’s decision in Avena was not valid federal law. The Court was sure to reenforce, however, that “Indeed, we agree with Medellín that, as a general matter, ‘an agreement to abide by the result’ of an international adjudication—or what he really means, an agreement to give the result of such adjudication domestic legal effect—can be a treaty obligation like any other, so long as the agreement is consistent with the Constitution.”

More analysis to come.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • PDF Packs for the Past Decade: I've been pillaging the Supreme Court's website in search of PDFs that I can archive for future reference. Using the Court's website and the...
  • Frequency of Consecutive Opinions Release Days: I've taken a look at the number of opinion days in a given week from OT06 to OT10. In other words, I've taken a look at the number of times ...
  • Top Supreme Court Advocates of the Twenty-First Century: I have a new Article out in the Journal of Legal Metrics entitled Top Supreme Court Advocates of the Twenty First Century. You can download ...
  • Who is Roy W. McLeese?: This morning, as I was perusing next month's hearing list, I noticed a name I wasn't familiar with: Roy W. McLeese. It isn't unusual to see ...
  • Average Age (1800-2010): I've posted a PDF of the Court's average age at the beginning of every term from 1800-present. The ages were taken on the first Monday in Oc...