What’s a Court to do?

Medellín v. Dretke

A Mexican national, Medellin, who was convicted of a capital crime, was granted review by the Supreme Court regarding the deprivation of his right to consular access during his trial, afforded by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Court granted review to determine (1) whether federal court is bound by the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling that the convictions of Medellin, and 54 other Mexican nationals, must be reconsidered “without regard to procedural default doctrines” (whatever that means); and (2) whether federal court should give effect to the ICJ’s judgement.

Then, President Bush issued a memorandum stating that State courts would give effect to the Convention. Meanwhile, Medellin began habeaus corpus proceedings in lower court, relying on this memorandum. The majority here sees these proceedings in lower court as possibly providing the relief that Medellin sought in the Supreme Court with this case.

The majority explains that the lower court would have to rule on a number of issues to determine if Medellin is entitled to win his habeas corpus proceedings. The lower court could the rights afforded by the ICJ are not “cognizable,” since habeas corpus is only provided where there has been a “fundamental defect” in the court. The lower court could also find that Medellin failed to show that the law had been applied in a way that had been “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Additionally, there is the issue that defendants are not generally allowed to enforce a new rule of law. Finally, Medellin needs a Certificate of Appealability, which is only allowed where “there is ‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,’” and therefore Medellin would have to show that the denial of a right afforded by an international treaty violated his constitutional rights.

The dissent is concerned with the propriety of avoiding a decision on Medellin’s current appeal, and whether these questions should be left for lower courts to decide, though the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to clarify any lower court decision. I don’t understand most of this because so much of it is procedural stuff that I have no exposure to. The Supreme Court decided to revoke certiorari for now, but this case will probably be back.