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

  • Updated Term Statistics: I've updated the Term Statistics to reflect this week's opinions. Complete --- Term Index Opinion Breakdown Vote Breakdown
  • Several Supreme Court Litigators Make the NLJ "Minority 40 Under 40": The NLJ recently released their "Minority 40 Under 40" list of the top 40 minority lawyers under the age of 40. Its a fairly arbitrary marke...
  • Early OT09 Stats: I've finally finished the first edition of my OT09 statistics. First, the links: Term Index and Term Opinion Breakdown. Honestly, the nam...
  • Supreme Court Releases Four Opinions; Ten Remain: The Supreme Court released four divided opinions today including a very interesting case rejecting an inmate's right to test the DNA used to...
  • Traitors to the Cause: 6-3 decisions are, statistically speaking, the least common vote split. Frequently, those cases split along the ideological lines that are s...