As the early analysis starts to pour in on the Supreme Court’s Medellin opinion, I did a quick scan of the headlines. As I have argued here and here, the case is, at bottom, about the persistence of the death penalty in the U.S. and the efforts of close allies and neighbors of the U.S. to do something about it. Check out the early headlines, which reflect the centrality of the case to the death penalty and immigration debates:

US High Court Denies Hearing to Death Row Mexicans (Bloomberg)
Court rules against Bush, Mexican on Death Row (Reuters)
Supreme Court overrules Bush, OKs Texas execution (CNN)
Bush Overruled in Death Penalty Dispute (ABC)

Of course, there are the inevitable Texas-themed headlines:

Court doesn’t mess with Texas; denies new trial (Baltimore Sun)

As we read and watch the news coverage of the case, it will be interesting to count the uses of the word “Mexican,” “immigrant,” “murder,” and “death penalty.” And “World Court,” which sounds so much more ominous than “International Court of Justice.”

The fun continues at Opinio Juris next week, February 11-14, as we host an online discussion of Professor Andrew Guzman’s book, How International Law Works, which has just been published by Oxford University Press. Professor Guzman teaches at UC-Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, where he directs the International Legal Studies Program. Guzman is a prolific scholar and this book makes an important contribution to international law theory by deploying the tools of rational choice to explain how and why international law affects the behavior of states. Professor Guzman will post an introduction to his claims in the book on Monday, to be followed by commentary by Jeff Dunoff (Temple), Kal Raustiala (UCLA) and Alex Geisinger (Drexel). Some of the OJ regulars will be joining in the discussion. We welcome comments from our readers as well.

If you would like to order a copy of the book, you can do so here at the OUP website (keeping in mind that ASIL members get a discount!).