Newsroom

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Monday arguing that if a criminal is found guilty of a brutal crime in Texas, sentenced under U.S. law, and the procedure is upheld by the Supreme Court, those courts should not be reversed by an international court, particularly one that is unaccountable to American voters or American law. U.S. cases, Cornyn said, should be decided by American law, American courts, and American jurors, and U.S. sovereignty should not be subverted by international law.On March 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the authority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to bind U.S. courts, and the Court’s decision in the matter will have major ramifications for previous convictions, as well as future prosecutions of foreign nationals who commit crimes in the United States. In particular, the court will consider the case of a Mexican national, Jose Medellin, who was convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of two Texas teens and sentenced to death. Though Medellin was provided with all rights afforded any other criminal defendant—and found guilty in a court of law—an effort is underway to have an international court supersede the laws of Texas, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and American sovereignty.Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and former Texas Supreme Court justice, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in the case, Medellin v. Dretke. He argued that allowing the ICJ to issue orders to U.S. courts, particularly the Supreme Court, would undermine the independence of the judiciary, and that Medellin’s "interpretation of the ICJ’s authority under the Vienna Convention raises grave constitutional questions and thus should not be adopted." The amicus brief was drafted by top appellate and constitutional lawyers at the distinguished law firm of Cooper & Kirk, led by Charles "Chuck" Cooper."The state of Texas is simply trying to enforce its laws. Medellin has been given access to an attorney, a right to a fair trial, and all of the appeals and habeas rights our system affords," Cornyn said. "The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that any alleged violation of the Vienna Convention must be raised at trial, or it is waived. In other words, the Supreme Court has made clear that criminal defendants may not sit on their rights so that they can use them as procedural tricks later in the process to further delay the administration of justice."Following his conviction for the slayings, Medellin sought habeas relief from a federal district court, arguing that his conviction and sentence violated Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which requires state prosecutors to notify a detained foreign national of his right to request consular assistance from his own country and, if he so requests, to promptly inform the consul post of that country. The appeals failed as a matter of U.S. law because Medellin failed to raise such concerns at trial, but the Mexican government nevertheless asked the ICJ to intervene. The ICJ subsequently ruled that the United States should review the convictions and sentences of Medellin and 50 others on death row, citing a violation of the 1963 Vienna convention, despite U.S. law and Supreme Court precedent—and Medellin’s failure to raise the Vienna issue until after he had been convicted in a court of law.Cornyn, a former state attorney general and current chairman of the Judiciary Committee panel with oversight of border security, joined the State of Texas and others in arguing that the Supreme Court, not the ICJ, should have the final say over U.S. courts, and crimes committed within the U.S."Allowing the ICJ to bind our courts would violate Article III of the Constitution, which vests judicial power only in courts that are subservient to the U.S. Supreme Court; violate Article II, which provides that all principal officers of the U.S. -- including judges -- be appointed by the President pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate; and violate Article I, which provides that Congress has the power to establish such courts," Cornyn said. "The ICJ ruling is, at most, an interpretation of international law, enforceable exclusively through international diplomatic channels—not a binding decision enforceable through U.S. courts."In the brief submitted to the court on Monday, Cornyn argued that the ICJ is an example of the type of court the Framers warned against in their effort to create and protect an independent judiciary. The ICJ’s members, Cornyn pointed out, are elected by the United Nations, and not under the U.S. Constitution. Further, the term of an ICJ judge is limited to nine years, not lifetime appointments like U.S. federal judges, creating a situation where an ICJ judge seeking election or reelection must curry the favor not only of his or her own country, but of a majority of countries in the General Assembly and the Security Council. "This appointment process accompanied by limited tenure is the very antithesis of the independence guaranteed by Article III," Cornyn said in the brief.Cornyn and others further argued that since Medellin failed to assert the violation of the Vienna Convention at trial, his claim is procedurally barred under federal statutory law as previously construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and, Cornyn said, "nothing in the ICJ ruling can alter that conclusion."Cornyn served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.