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

  • Update: List Of Advocates Who Have Argued Twice In A Month: Four days ago, I posted a list of the advocates who have argued twice during a single month since 2003. Well, that chart is already outdated...
  • Rate of 5-4 Majority Opinion Authorship: As a general matter, the Justices that tend to carry the greatest ideological authority on the Supreme Court should be the ones authoring th...
  • 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 ...
  • Updated Term Statistics: I've updated the Term Statistics to reflect this week's opinions. Complete --- Term Index Opinion Breakdown Vote Breakdown
  • Four 8-1 Decisions in One Day: The Supreme Court released four opinions today, and each was 8-1. You can find all of the opinions here. CompuCredit v. Greenwood, a case...