32 / 350
MAX HILAIRE
CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ
sentence against a defendant who was deemed to be legally retarded.
19
In
Lawrence v.
Texas
the court struck down a Texas law banning sodomy between consenting adults
as a violation of their human rights. The court referenced decisions in Ireland and the
European Court on Human Rights as examples of global trends toward decriminalizing
such behavior.
20
I will address some of these issues in a subsequent section.
The Supreme Court also weighed in on the Bush administration war on terror.
In
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
, the court invalidated the Military Commission that the
president established by Executive Order to prosecute suspected terrorists captured
in Afghanistan.
21
The court cited Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
of 1949, which called for a civilian court to try anyone captured on the battlefield
whose combatant status was in doubt.
22
In
Boumediene v. Bush
the Supreme Court
also upheld the right of detainees to petition for habeas corpus, which the Military
Commission Act of 2006 had suspended for suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo
Bay.
23
The court chastised the Bush administration for asserting that the president
could hold someone indefinitely outside of U.S. territory to avoid judicial scrutiny.
The Roberts Court, on the other hand, has issued some very controversial rulings
that question the court’s commitment to international law. Among them are two
noteworthy cases:
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
, in which the Supreme Court vacated
the decision of the 9
th
Circuit, which had agreed with Alvarez-Machain that his
human rights were violated for being illegally detained by the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA).
24
In Medellín v. Texas
the Supreme Court rejected Medellín’s
claim that the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in
Avena
was binding
on the state of Texas.
25
The court interpreted the ICJ Statute, the Charter of the United
Nations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations as non-self-executing
treaties which were not legally binding on the United States.The court’s majority opined
that it was not the intent of the framers of the ICJ Statute for decisions of the ICJ to be
legally binding because the court itself lacked an enforcement mechanism and had to
rely on the Security Council to enforce its judgments.
26
Decisions of the ICJ can only
be enforced by the Security Council where the United States has a veto power. The
use of the veto by the U.S. or any other permanent member of the Security Council
would effectively kill any chances of the ICJ judgment from taking effect. In
Sanchez-
Llamas v. Oregon
the Supreme Court held individuals did not have a cause of action
under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as a treaty is an agreement
between sovereign states and could not be invoked to grant rights to individuals.
27
The
19
536 U.S. 304 (2002).
20
539 U.S. 558 (2003).
21
548 U.S. 557 (557) (2006).
22
August 12, 1949, 6 UST 3316, TIAS No. 3364.
23
Public Law 109-366 (Oct. 17, 2006).
24
542 U.S. 692 (2004).
25
128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008).
26
See
Article 94, para. 2 of the United Nations Charter.
27
548 U.S. 331 (2006).