In Affirming Texas Death Penalty Conviction, Justices Strike Blow for Federalism

This is why Presidential elections matter.

In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court this week rejected the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) attempt to order Texas courts to retry death row inmate Jose Medellin, a Mexican national. In so doing, the Court struck a blow for American sovereignty against unrelenting efforts to subsume domestic courts to international authorities.

Further, this decision illustrates the critical importance of this year’s Presidential election, as the next President may appoint up to three justices to the Court.

The Medellin decision itself originated from the June 1993 gang rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston, Texas. Mr. Medellin and his street gang accomplices pounced upon the two girls as they walked home along a railroad track, a crime noted for its savagery and cruelty. After repeatedly raping the terrified, helpless girls, Medellin and his gang brutally strangled them to death, dumping their bodies to remain undiscovered for days.

Like most crude thugs, Medellin and his cohorts were quickly captured by police. Authorities provided the requisite Miranda warnings and other Constitutional rights to the gang members, who quickly proceeded to confess to the sordid crimes. Based upon those confessions and other overwhelming physical evidence against him, Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death.

Although Medellin received excellent legal defense and Constitutional protections, Houston police had inadvertently overlooked the diplomatic protocol that home country diplomats be contacted when aliens are arrested. Although Medellin had lived most of his life in the United States, he was still technically a Mexican national when he committed the rapes and murders.

Despite the fact that this diplomatic technicality had no substantive effect upon Medellin’s quick confession or subsequent legal defense, the Mexican government sued the United States in the ICJ at The Hague. It should be noted that the ICJ’s members included such human rights beacons as China, Egypt and Sierra Leone.

Predictably, the ICJ ruled 14-1 in Mexico’s favor, and arrogantly ordered Texas and other states to provide new hearings to Medellin and 50 other Mexican national convicts in America. The ICJ brazenly instructed those independent American state courts to provide “review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences” of the convicted criminals.

This from a court that has no authority to issue remedial orders against nations’ domestic courts.

In a bizarre and unexpected twist, however, the Bush Administration in 2005 curiously issued an unconstitutional executive order directing states to comply with the ICJ ruling. Because our federalist system does not permit a President to issue such orders and interfere with independent state courts, this executive order had no legal effect. Nevertheless, the President’s attempt served as a disappointing surrender by the White House to international elite opinion.

On the basis of the illegitimate ICJ opinion and President Bush’s inexplicable order, Medellin subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. Liberals and international elites hoped that the Court would overturn Medellin’s conviction, allowing international authorities to further undermine American sovereignty.

Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority, and ruled that the ICJ decision did not supersede an independent Texas court conviction. According to Justice Roberts, the Vienna Convention establishing the ICJ was merely a diplomatic understanding between sovereign national governments, rather than a binding authority creating new rights for criminal convicts in domestic courts. If Congress wished to add the force of law to international agreements such as this, the Court held, it can enact formal legislation accordingly. Since Congress had not done so, the ICJ was impotent to issue orders to American courts.

Accordingly, this decision stands as a critical milestone in the ongoing battle to maintain American sovereignty. It also stands as a check against national intrusion into independent state matters, and in favor of our federalist system. As Justice Roberts noted, a President possesses no power to issue such an order that “reaches deep into the heart of the State’s police powers and compels state courts to reopen final criminal judgments and set aside neutrally applicable state laws.”

In dissent, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter asserted that “[i]n a world where commerce, trade, and travel have become ever more international, that is a step in the wrong direction.”

No, it is a step in the right direction, and Americans should be thankful for Justice Roberts’s reasoned opinion. We should also remember this whenever we begin to think that Presidential elections, which subsequently lead to Supreme Court nominations, don’t really matter.