WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court appeared divided along ideological lines Monday when hearing arguments over the fate of a Mexican murderer on death row, an unusual capital appeal that pits the state of Texas against the Bush administration.
The Supreme Court is considering a case that could affect more than 51 Mexican nationals on death row.
The case -- which involves questions about federal authority, state sovereignty and foreign treaties -- revolves around Jose Ernesto Medellin, who faces execution for two slayings.
Medellin was 18 when he participated in the June 1993 gang rape and murder of two Harris County, Texas, girls, 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena. He was convicted of the crimes and sentenced to death.
At issue is whether the state must give in to a demand by President Bush to allow the prisoner new court hearings and sentencing.
Bush made that demand reluctantly after an international criminal court ruled in 2003 that Medellin was improperly denied access to his consulate before his original prosecution, a violation of a treaty signed by the United States decades ago.
The nearly 50 other Mexican nationals awaiting execution in various states also would be affected by a high court ruling. Oklahoma commuted a capital inmate's sentence to life in prison after the international judgment.
Bush said he disagreed with the International Court of Justice's conclusions, but agreed to comply with them.
"The United States will discharge its international obligations," Bush said in a February 28, 2005, executive order.
But a Texas appeals court later rejected that executive authority. Judge Sharon Keller concluded the president's "unprecedented, unnecessary, and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by the foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution."
Arguing before the court Wednesday, Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz called the president's action "a very curious assertion of presidential authority."
The justices were particularly animated in their questioning, and oral arguments lasted nearly 90 minutes, well beyond the usual 60, and centered on what role each branch of government plays to give force to international treaty obligations.
Lawyers for the administration and Medellin argued Bush properly exercised his unilateral executive authority, which several justices questioned.
"The thing that concerns me about your position is that it seems to leave no role for this court in interpreting treaties as a matter of federal law," said Chief Justice John Roberts on repeated occasions, "even if we determine that [international] judgment was based on a legal error," inconsistent with federal law.
But Medellin lawyer Donald Donovan argued "three treaties ratified by the president and Senate said when this country commits itself to do something, we're going to do it."
That argument received some support from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"The United States gave its promise," Ginsburg said. "It voluntarily accepted this jurisdiction. It didn't have to."
Justice Anthony Kennedy offered a measure of support for the position of the Texas court. "I think Medellin did receive all the [state] hearings he's entitled to under the [international] judgment," he said.
He added, "It is up to us to determine how we are going to comply with the international obligation, and there is no obligation on the part of the state to comply with that law."
Kennedy's interpretation of the case could prove the key to how this case is decided. The 71-year-old justice appeared to side mostly with the state, but did offer a few encouraging comments to the other side.
The Constitution's Article VI says "all treaties made ... shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."
"The Constitution means what it says," said Justice Stephen Breyer. "But there happened to be a few instances where the nature of the obligation or the intent of the party makes it difficult to enforce it as a binding judgment of a[n international] court. That is not this case."
The White House typically backs states in their power to carry out executions, but Justice Department officials said in these instances, the president's power to conduct foreign policy outweighs state interests.
The Supreme Court originally heard the Medellin case in 2005 but did not rule on the merits, waiting instead for lower courts to resolve the federalism angle. Now that state courts have weighed in, it rests with the nine justices to finally resolve the matter in coming months.
The case is Medellin v. Texas (06-984). E-mail to a friend 
All About U.S. Supreme Court
| Most Viewed | Most Emailed | Top Searches |
From the Blogs: 
Sit tight, we're getting to the good stuff
