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

  • Advocate Scorecard for OT 09: I finished this a while ago but neglected to post it until now. Whoops? Anyways, here is the OT 09 advocate scorecard with win/loss record. ...
  • Updated Term Charts: Starting this week, I'll be posting my updated charts on SCOTUSblog. You can find the first SB version of my charts here. More spec...
  • Profile: H. Bartow Farr, III: In the past, we've profiled notable advocates and judges that were in the news. This is the first in a series of posts about the advocates w...
  • 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...
  • Supreme Court Justices: Age at Retirement: Using the still-fabulous Supreme Court Compendium data set, I've thrown together a chart plotting the ages of each Justice at retirement. I ...