Supreme Court Rules Us Courts Are Independent of Hague

US courts are not bound by the international court of justice or by direct orders from the president, the supreme court ruled today when it refused to allow a fresh hearing for a Mexican on death row.

In a 6-3 decision, the supreme court ruled that courts in Texas were not compelled to comply with a ruling from the ICJ to allow a new hearing for the Mexican inmate because he had not been given access to consular assistance. State courts were also not obliged to follow orders from George Bush, who had instructed Texas to comply with the ICJ, the ruling said.

The decision could put the US at odds with EU countries and Mexico which had urged the supreme court to order a new hearing for Jos? Ernesto Medell?n.

It was also a rebuff for Bush who had put been put in the awkward position of trying to shield Medell?n, a gang member convicted in 1993 of raping and strangling to death two teenage girls. The intervention was all the more difficult for Bush because Texas is his home state. As governor he signed the death warrant for more than 150 prisoners.

But the supreme court decided today that in the Medell?n case Bush had overstepped his powers by instructing the Texas courts to comply with the ICJ.

In its 2004 ruling on behalf of Medell?n and some 50 other Mexican inmates on death row, the ICJ had held Texas in breach of the Vienna convention, which gives prisoners in foreign jails the right to seek assistance from their home country. Medell?n and other Mexicans on death row were not given consular access to Mexican diplomats before their trial.

Medell?n was never a legal resident of the US although he had lived in Texas from the age of nine. His lawyers had said that he was not told of his consular rights during his trial. But the Texas court had argued that he had waived his rights under state laws because he had not raised the issue of consular meetings until long after his original conviction.

John Roberts, the chief justice, endorsed that today, ruling that the Texas courts did not necessarily have to adapt their criminal procedures to international law.

"Not all international obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in US courts," he wrote.

Roberts also said that Bush's powers as president did not stretch to make an international treaty into binding law at home.

"The responsibility for transforming an international obligation arising from a non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress," he wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Stephen Breyew urged Texas to grant a new hearing to Medell?n despite today's ruling. So did Medell?n's lawyer, Donald Donovan, who said Congress should push for legislation to bring US courts into compliance with the convention. "Having given its word, the United States should keep its word," he said.