|
The Wall Street Journal
Supreme Court Backs Texas In Dispute With President
Associated Press
March 25, 2008 12:46 p.m.
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled that President Bush overstepped his
authority when he ordered a Texas court to grant a new hearing to a Mexican
on death row for rape and murder.
In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the
death penalty, the court sided with Texas 6-3.
Mr. Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose
Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting
with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.
An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Mr. Medellin
and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the U.S. violated the 1963 Vienna
Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to
their home country's consular officials. The International Court of Justice,
also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new
court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.
Mr. Bush disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by
state courts because the U.S. had agreed to abide by the world court's
rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president's
declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Mr. Medellin a new hearing.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. He said the
international court decision cannot be forced upon the states. The president
may not "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state
law," Justice Roberts said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
[Image]
Death row inmate Jose Ernesto Medellin
The international court judgment should be enforced, Justice Breyer wrote.
"The nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live
up to that word," he said.
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the outcome of the case, said
nothing prevents Texas from giving Mr. Medellin another hearing even though
it isn't compelled to do so.
"Texas' duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that --
by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna
Convention -- ensnared the United States in the current controversy,"
Justice Stevens said.
Mr. Medellin was arrested a few days after the killings of Jennifer Ertman,
14 years old, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in June 1993. He was told he had a
right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, but the police didn't tell
him that he could request assistance from the Mexican consulate. He was
convicted of murder in the course of a sexual assault, a capital offense in
Texas. A judge sentenced him to death in October 1994.
Texas acknowledged that Mr. Medellin wasn't told he could ask for help from
Mexican diplomats, but argued that he forfeited the right because he never
raised the issue at trial or sentencing. State and federal courts rejected
Mr. Medellin's claim when he raised it on appeal.
In 2003, Mexico sued the U.S. in the International Court of Justice in The
Hague on behalf of Mr. Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row in the
U.S. who also had been denied access to their country's diplomats following
their arrests. (Medellin v. Texas)
Justices Consider Jurisdiction in Iraq Case
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday in cases concerning two
Americans who are being held by the military in Iraq who want U.S. courts to
keep them from being transferred to Iraqi custody.
The Bush administration argues that U.S. courts are powerless to intervene
in the cases of Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Omar because they are being held
by international forces, not the U.S. military.
Mr. Omar, who also holds Jordanian citizenship, is accused of being a senior
associate of the late insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The U.S.
government said Mr. Omar was harboring an Iraqi insurgent and four Jordanian
fighters at the time of his arrest in October 2004 and also had bomb-making
materials.
Mr. Munaf, an Iraqi native who has been held since May 2005, was implicated
in the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists, convicted by an Iraqi court
and sentenced to death. The conviction has since been thrown out, but the
legal issue is unchanged for the Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia has said that Omar, who once served in the Minnesota National
Guard, has a right to make his case in a U.S. court. A different panel of
judges from the same appeals court ruled against Mr. Munaf, but the court
distinguished the case from Mr. Omar's based on Mr. Munaf's conviction.
In a second case Tuesday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey will argue that
the court should reinstate the conviction of would-be millennium bomber
Ahmed Ressam on an explosives charge that an appeals court threw out. Mr.
Ressam was convicted on eight other counts, which remain in effect.
Mr. Mukasey presided over high-profile terrorism trials while a federal
judge in New York, but he has never argued a case at the high court. (Munaf
v. Geren, Geren v. Omar and U.S. v. Ressam)
Justices Split on Arbitration Ruling
The Supreme Court has limited the role of the courts in reviewing
arbitration awards under federal law. In a 6-3 decision, the justices said,
however, that there may be other legal avenues besides the Federal
Arbitration Act to enable a larger role for the courts in examining the work
of arbitrators.
The case before the Supreme Court involved a cleanup dispute between toy
maker Mattel Inc. and the owner of a factory site in Oregon contaminated
with an industrial solvent. The issue was whether Mattel and Hall Street
Associates LLC could agree in advance to broad court review of an
arbitration award to correct any errors of law.
The Federal Arbitration Act "confines its expedited judicial review" to
narrow circumstances, Justice Souter wrote in the majority opinion. He
added, however, that the court is "is no position" to address possible
alternatives to reliance on the FAA.
An arbitrator ruled that Mattel didn't have to pay for environmental cleanup
on Hall Street's property. A federal judge subsequently rejected the
arbitrator's legal reasoning. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco sided with Mattel, saying the Federal Arbitration Act bars
judicial review of arbitration awards in such circumstances.
The lower-court finding in favor of Mattel underscores the concern of some
businesses that are hesitant to settle disputes through arbitration. These
businesses say that in most cases they cannot appeal to a judge if an
arbitrator rules against them. (Hall Street Associates v. Mattel)
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120644843811162217.html
|
| |
| |
|
