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

  • An Interview with Michael Dreeben: Michael Dreeben, a Deputy Solicitor General, spent the last semester on leave to teach at Duke University Law School. During his time there,...
  • More Sophisticated Reconferencing Statistics: A commentator on my last conferencing post picked up on an important part of the distribution question that I had intentionally omitted....
  • Updated Term Stats: Term Index Vote Breakdown Vote Breakdown Stats --- You can see from the Term Index that Justice Stevens is the most likely author of...
  • 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...
  • Uninterrupted Distributions Count for OT10 Cases: Docket pages for each case at the Supreme Court list when a case is distributed for a given conference and, therefore, up for consideration....