{
  "id": "RL34450",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL34450",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 347071,
      "date": "2008-04-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T03:31:10.712756",
      "title": "Can the President Compel Domestic Enforcement of an International Tribunal\u2019s Judgment? Overview of Supreme Court Decision in Medellin v. Texas",
      "summary": "The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) is a multilateral agreement codifying consular practices originally governed by customary practice and bilateral agreements between States (i.e., countries). Article 36 of the VCCR provides that when a national of a signatory State is arrested or otherwise detained in another signatory State, appropriate authorities within the receiving State must inform him \u201cwithout delay\u201d of his right to have his consulate notified. Nevertheless, foreign nationals detained by U.S. state and local authorities are not always provided with requisite consular information.\nUntil March 2005, the United States was also a party to the VCCR\u2019s Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Parties to the Optional Protocol agree to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve disputes arising between nations with respect to the VCCR. Prior to U.S. withdrawal from the Optional Protocol, the ICJ issued a judgment in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States) (Avena), instructing the United States to review and reconsider the state convictions and sentences of 51 Mexican nationals who were not timely informed of their right to consular notification under VCCR Article 36, regardless of whether such review was otherwise barred by state procedural default rules. Although the United States subsequently withdrew from the Optional Protocol, the President thereafter issued a Memorandum instructing state courts to give effect to the ICJ\u2019s decision in Avena with respect to the 51 Mexican nationals at issue in that case.\nOn March 25, 2008, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Medell\u00edn v. Texas. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia, the Court held that neither the judgment of the ICJ in Avena nor the President\u2019s Memorandum constituted enforceable federal law preempting state procedural default rules. Justice Stevens wrote an opinion concurring with the Court\u2019s judgment, and Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Souter. For further background on issues related to VCCR Article 36, see CRS Report RL33613, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon: Recent Developments Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, by Michael John Garcia, and CRS Report RL32390, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Overview of U.S. Implementation and International Court of Justice (ICJ) Interpretation of Consular Notification Requirements, by Michael John Garcia.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34450",
          "sha1": "9d9673ec45016b45a02712e0e49e51070900093c",
          "filename": "files/20080410_RL34450_9d9673ec45016b45a02712e0e49e51070900093c.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34450",
          "sha1": "0008a58b8bdd9b7b941d76a80bce5f9edf73928d",
          "filename": "files/20080410_RL34450_0008a58b8bdd9b7b941d76a80bce5f9edf73928d.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}