Medellin, Avena, The Supremacy of Treaties, And Relevant Executive Authority (The Medellin V. Texas Symposium‪)‬

The case of Medellin v. Texas, (1) decided recently by the Supreme Court of the United States, had raised questions of whether the President of the United States has constitutional authority to faithfully execute treaties of the United States with or without the approval of Congress, and whether treaties of the United States, as well as executive implementary measures, are binding on the states under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. (2) The majority opinion of Chief Justice Roberts decided against such presidential authority with respect to the implementation of a judgment of the International Court of Justice. As noted below, I respectfully disagree and would answer the questions in the affirmative. Indeed, the express mandate of the Supremacy Clause is reason enough to ensure that the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in this case, as an outcome and part of binding treaty processes, must prevail within the states of the United States. I. TREATY-BASED OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES