[Mark Weisburd is the Martha M. Brandis Professor of Law at UNC Law School.] I find it difficult to read Medellin as institutionalizing a presumption against self-execution. If that had been Roberts's intent, the form of his argument should have been, "We presume non self-execution, is there anything to overcome the presumption?" Instead, he analyzed the text, ratification hearings, and practice...
[Edward Swaine is an Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School. ] The quick scorecard on Medellin is pretty simple: Texas wins, the ICJ loses, and the President loses. I have lots of reactions to what the opinions say about the ICJ, non-self-execution, and even comparative law, but let's just focus on this bottom line. The...
There is much one could say about Medellín, but I want to focus on the meta-question of what this decision portends for the future of international courts and tribunals. While the domestic effect of ICJ decisions is now cast into serious doubt (at least in terms of direct enforcement), I think there is far more reason to be hopeful...
I wanted to react quickly to two of the other items posted earlier today. First, Paul Stephan makes the point that Justice Breyer's dissent is "very problematic." I agree. Breyer's opinion does not make a helpful contribution to untying the "Gordian knot" of non-self-execution doctrine. Second, Curt Bradley claims that the Court's decision effectively reserves "to...
Eric Posner has this post up on Medellin on Slate's new law blog Convictions, which wraps up with the following: There is an academic theory that holds that the type of litigation (sometimes called "transnational legal process") exemplified by the Medellin case would eventually bring the United States into greater and greater compliance with international law. But with the benefit of...
In Medellin, the Court held “that neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law . . . .” This comment focuses on the effect of the Avena judgment itself, and disregards the President’s Memorandum. The majority was undoubtedly correct to hold that Avena is not “directly enforceable federal law.” In fact, Avena is not...
I'll venture a cautious prediction beyond the four corners of the opinion: Medellin will not be executed. I don't think it will result from anything that happens in Washington; Congress just won't have adequate incentive to help out a brutal murderer in the name of international legal obligation. The Administration might try to push for implementing legislation sufficient...
As lead counsel on the scholars’ amicus brief in support of Texas, I am not entirely unbiased here. But when one can get scholars with as diverse views of executive power as John Yoo and Erwin Chemerinsky to sign on to a brief arguing that the President has gone too far, it shouldn’t be entirely surprising to find that...
[Mark Movsesian is the Frederick A. Whitney Professor of Contract Law at St. John's University School of Law.] Thanks to Chris for inviting me to say a few quick words about today’s very significant decision. Hooray for Dualism: Just as he did two years ago in Sanchez-Llamas, CJ Roberts endorsed a dualist approach to the judgments of international tribunals....
Our own Duncan Hollis was cited by Justice Breyer in his Medellin dissent. Justice Breyer cites to Duncan's essay A Comparative Approach to Treaty Law and Practice, which is from the book National Treaty Law and Practice, co-edited by Duncan, Merritt R. Blakeslee, and L. Benjamin Ederington. The first cite to Duncan's essay appears on page 11 of the dissent....
A first read through the Medellín opinions leads to tentative observations, subject to revision: • Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the Court is modest and fairly careful. He does not articulate a presumption against self-enforcement, or offer a general interpretive template. The analysis of the Optional Protocol and the UN Charter is specific to those two instruments. As my prior briefs and...
There is a way in which the Medellin decision fits very nicely with our discussion last week about congressional-executive agreements. Like Oona’s article, the decision in Medellin is very pro-Congress. The Court’s finding of non-self-execution means that it is reserving to Congress the determinations of whether and how to comply with the ICJ decision. Similarly, the Court’s...
