World Court to U.S.: Would You Bring Texas in Line, Already?

[WSJ_law_blog]

Over at Scotusblog today, Lyle Denniston has done us all a service, first by reporting news of a decision out of the “World Court” today, and second by providing a lucid explanation of the fascinating backstory. In less sure hands, about now we’d be reaching for the aspirin.

The dealio, with Denniston’s help: Today, the World Court, otherwise known as the International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a ruling ordering the U.S. to stop the execution of five Mexican nationals, currently being held in Texas. Click here for a press release issued by the ICJ, here for the opinion itself.

The underlying case affects five Mexican nationals convicted of murder in the U.S. Mexico contends that those five were denied their rights under the Vienna Convention to be told, after their arrest and during their prosecutions, that they had a right to consult with a diplomat from their own country.
According to Denniston’s reporting, the U.S. government has admitted the defendants’ rights under the treaty were violated, but — oddly, in the Law Blog’s view — it has been unable to stop their executions. The Bush administration tried to order Texas to implement an earlier World Court order, one from 2004, but that attempt was first rebuffed by Texas courts and then by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Administration then joined in supporting one of the defendant’s second appeal to the Supremes, seeking to get the World Court ruling enforced in Texas. But the effort that failed on March 25, when the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote ruled that the ruling could not be enforced against Texas, either by direct action by President Bush or by the authority of the World Court itself. (Click here for CJ Roberts’s majority opinion. Supremes to World: Don’t Mess with Texas!)

Deep breaths, LBers, because things are about to get hairy.

After it’s Supreme Court defeat in March, Mexico decided it wouldn’t go down easy. It repetitioned the World Court, asking it to re-interpret its earlier ruling. Apparently, the World Court allows re-interpretations of previous rulings if any part of that ruling remains in dispute. While the Bush administration argued that nothing was left to dispute — it had tried to enforce the earlier ruling but had failed — Mexico disagreed. The dispute, argued Mexico, was over just how far the U.S. had to go in trying to enforce the ruling. It was Mexico’s understanding that “other federal and state authorities” had to try to enforce the ruling.

In today’s ruling, the World Court aligned itself with Mexico, ruling that a dispute did, in fact, still exist. Therefore, it could (and would) take the opportunity to clarify its earlier ruling. Apparently it will soon — all it said today is that the U.S. was required to “take all measures necessary” to halt the executions. And what does that mean? Well, the World Court is apparently planning to rule “with all possible expedition.”

That’s all. The end of the post. If you made it this far, you deserve a meal: Mexican, Dutch or U.S.-based. Your choice.