SCOTUS Rules on International Law and Presidential Power
The Supreme Court issued two opinions today.
In Medellin v. Texas, the Court 6-3 rejected the argument that the President alone could make an international treaty binding law inside the United States, and held that rulings by the International Court of Justice are not binding on U.S. States when those rulings contradict states' criminal procedure rules. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, said that rulings by the ICJ, although imposing an international obligation on the US, are not automatically given legal effect under the U.N. Charter. Lyle Denniston of Scotusblog summarizes the decision. Justice Stevens concurring in the judgment, with Justices Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg dissenting.
In Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, the Court held that parties cannot contractually agree to expand court review of an arbitration agreement beyond that permitted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Written By:Bruce Katz On March 27, 2008 3:14 PM
I'm not an attorney, so forgive me if I'm confused. Article VI of the Constitution says, in part, that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This being the case, on what reading of Constitutional law did the Court base its decision in Medellin v Texas? Is our status with regards to the Geneva Conventions something less than a treaty?