Medellín v. Texas
2008 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Medellín v. Texas?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification.[1] The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.[1][2]
Quick Facts Medellín v. Texas, Argued October 10, 2007 Decided March 25, 2008 ...
Medellín v. Texas | |
---|---|
Argued October 10, 2007 Decided March 25, 2008 | |
Full case name | José Ernesto Medellín v. Texas |
Docket no. | 06-984 |
Citations | 552 U.S. 491 (more) 128 S. Ct. 1346; 170 L. Ed. 2d 190; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2912; 76 U.S.L.W. 4143; 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,242; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 126 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Medellín v. State, No. 71,997 (Tex. Crim. App., May 16, 1997); petition denied, S.D. Tex.; certificate of appealability denied, 371 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 543 U.S. 1032 (2005); cert. dismissed, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (per curiam) (Medellín I); Ex parte Medellín, 223 S.W. 3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); cert. granted Ex parte Medellín, 550 U.S. 917 (2007). |
Subsequent | Stay and petition denied, 554 U.S. 759 (2008) (Medellín III) |
Holding | |
Neither Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Judgment of Mar. 31) nor the President's Memorandum to the Attorney General (Feb. 28, 2005) constitutes an enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
Concurrence | Stevens (in judgment) |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsburg |
Laws applied | |
Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention, April 24, 1963, (1970) 21 U.S.T. 325, T.I.A.S. No. 6820; Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; Article 94 of the United Nations Charter; U.S. Const., Art. II, §3 |
Close