ICJ Decisions Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

The Eleventh Circuit this week rejected reliance on the ICJ Vienna Convention decisions in LaGrand and Avena to reconsider a British national’s conviction for murder. Noting that his claim had been procedurally defaulted, the Eleventh Circuit in Maharaj, available here, concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision in Breard was controlling. “In Breard, the Court unambiguously held that a habeas petitioner’s Vienna Convention claim was procedurally barred in federal court because it was not raised in the state court proceedings…. The Supreme Court has not retreated from its position in Breard, and none of the recent developments cited to us call the holding of Breard into substantial question, let alone overrule Breard.”

Maharaj then relied on the ICJ’s decision in LaGrand and Avena to have his Vienna Convention claims reconsidered. “Petitioner directs us to the cases of Avena and LaGrand, where the I.C.J. held that it was error to dispose of a claim under the Vienna Convention by use of a procedural bar. Petitioner cites no authority, however, for the proposition that precedent from the I.C.J. is binding upon this or any other state or federal court in the United States. Unsurprisingly, we were unable to find any controlling case law permitting us to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in favor of one from an international tribunal.”

Maharaj underscores the importance of the two pending Supreme Court cases in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon and Bustillo v. Johnson. Hopefully those Vienna Convention decisions will provide some clarity regarding the relevance of ICJ decisions on federal courts.