The biggest decision so far this year concerned sovereignty, globalism, the death penalty and the power of the President. To the pleasant surprise of conservatives, the Supreme Court delivered them a 6-3 victory, although the reasoning was less than satisfactory. Medellin v. Texas, 76 U.S.L.W. 4143 (Mar. 28, 2008). Chief Justice John Roberts lived up to his reputation of writing narrow opinions to muster consensus on the Court.

Petitioner Jose Ernesto Medellin, an illegal alien, was a “Black and Whites” gang member who raped and brutally murdered 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena as they were walking home. One of the girls tried to rescue the other, only to be savagely killed.

Medellin was given the standard Miranda warning upon his arrest a few days later, and he subsequently confessed to his crime. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. But he had not been advised of a right to consult with the Mexican consulate prior to being interrogated by police. Under a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1969, Medellin might assert a right to request assistance from his own country. Amazingly, he might claim a right greater than that enjoyed by American criminal suspects, and he sought to overturn his death penalty on this basis.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in the Hague and commonly known as the “World Court,” was established by the United Nations Charter to adjudicate disputes among nations. This World Court rendered a decision in 2004 entitled In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Judgment of Mar. 31) (Avena), which held in favor of Mexico’s claim against the United States concerning the treatment of Mexican criminal suspects detained for crimes committed in the United States.

The World Court thereby ordered the American criminal justice system to grant Medellin rights not enjoyed by American citizens, such as the right of Medellin to obtain assistance from the Mexican consulate. President Bush then agreed with Mexico and the World Court, and issued a memo in support of their position. The Supreme Court was told by all three, in essence, to overturn Medellin’s death penalty and grant him a new trial.

The Court refused, and the Chief Justice relied on a technicality in the Vienna Convention treaty to justify his verdict. Speaking for the 6-3 Court, Chief Justice Roberts held that this treaty was not “self-executing” and thus does not preempt domestic criminal law. Medellin therefore did not have extra rights under the treaty, and his death penalty was affirmed.

Justice John Paul Stevens, concurring, noted that most other treaties are self-executing and thus globalism would prevail in most other situations. For example, the globalist Law of the Sea treaty says that “decisions of the [Seabed Disputes] Chamber shall be enforceable in the territories of the States Parties in the same manner as judgments or orders of the highest court of the State Party in whose territory the enforcement is sought.” Annex VI, Art. 39, Dec. 10, 1982, S. Treaty Doc. No. 103-39, 1833 U.N.T.S. 570. Justice Stevens added that other treaties lacking self-executing language are still enforceable because Congress has passed implementing legislation.