In a twist, high court case sets Bush against Texas

A Mexican national's death sentence will have Supreme Court justices sorting out US treaty obligations, federal vs. state powers, and World Court rulings.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the October 10, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 2

Washington - When Americans are arrested in a foreign country, they have an international right to obtain the help of the US consulate.

The same treaty applies to a citizen of Mexico arrested in the US.

But what happens when the State of Texas ignores these treaty requirements and later rejects an order by President Bush to implement a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) attempting to enforce the treaty rights?

That's the issue that comes before the US Supreme Court on Wednesday in a case that raises potentially profound questions about the scope of presidential authority to enforce US treaty obligations that clash with the federal-state balance of power and principles of judicial independence.

The dispute stems from a gruesome Texas crime. In 1993, Jose Medellin was arrested for involvement in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls. The girls, ages 14 and 16, were walking home when Mr. Medellin and his friends ran after and assaulted them. They were killed to prevent them from talking to police.

Medellin was 18 and had spent most of his life in the US. He could read, write, and speak English. But because he was born in Mexico and had never become a US citizen, he had a right to consult Mexican consular officials upon his arrest.

Medellin was represented by court-appointed counsel during his trial, but he did not learn of his right to discuss the case with Mexican officials until after he was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of the two girls.

Lawyers for Medellin raised the issue on appeal, but lost. Then the Mexican government filed suit in the ICJ against the US for failing to provide consular notification and access as required by the treaty.

The ICJ ruled against the US. It ordered that Medellin and 50 other convicted Mexican nationals be given special hearings in American courts to determine if the treaty violation undercut their ability to receive a fair trial.

Although the Bush administration objected to the ICJ ruling, the president later wrote a memorandum ordering the Texas courts to give Medellin a new hearing on the issue. The Texas courts refused, saying Medellin had already received all the process that was required under Texas law.

At the Supreme Court, the justices are set to consider whether Mr. Bush acted within his authority as president when he ordered the state courts to conduct a new hearing in the Medellin case to comply with the ICJ ruling.

Page 1 | 2 | Next Page