• Newsroom
• About Us
• U.S. Embassies & Consulates
• Help & Contacts

• International Travel
• Passports
• Visas
• Child Abduction
• Laws, Regulation & Public Policy
• Congressional Liaison

On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Medellin v. Texas that involved domestic enforcement of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision finding the United States in breach of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). This case arose out of a claim brought by Mexico against the United States in the ICJ for the failure of state and local officials to provide consular notification to 51 named Mexican nationals, including Mr. Medellin.   The ICJ ruled that US courts should provide the 51 Mexican nationals with review and reconsideration to determine whether the failure to provide consular notification caused any prejudice.  Following the ICJ decision, the President issued a determination that the United States would discharge its international obligations under the decision by having the state courts provide this review and reconsideration. 

In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the Executive Branch that ICJ decisions in which the United States participates as a party constitute binding international law obligations on the United States, but are not directly enforceable as federal law in US courts.  The Court rejected the Executive Branch’s argument that the President had authority to establish binding rules of decision that would preempt contrary state law and have Texas courts review Medellin’s conviction and death sentence.  The Court did not decide whether the VCCR creates individual and judicially enforceable rights with respect to consular notification and access.  The Court did not in any way call into question the obligation of the United States to provide consular notification and access when aliens are detained within its borders.

The Department of State reminds all federal, state, and local law enforcement and other government officials that all consular notification and access requirements governed by the VCCR and other international agreements continue to remain in effect in the United States.  Our respect for international law and our desire to ensure that U.S. consular officers are able to assist our citizens abroad make it a high priority for us to fulfill our international obligations concerning consular notification and access.

On June 28, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in two cases (Bustillo v. Johnson and Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon) involving breaches of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).  Both cases involved the failure to inform foreign nationals that they may request consular notification and access upon their arrest or detention.  In its decision the Court did not decide whether the VCCR creates individual and judicially enforceable rights with respect to consular notification and access.  The Court agreed with the U.S. Government's position that even if the VCCR creates such rights, suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for failure to provide consular notification and access.  The Court also agreed that defendants can be barred from raising claims alleging lack of consular notification and access if they did not raise such claims at trial. 

The Court also reiterated the importance of the U.S.’s international obligations and stated that its decision in no way disparages the VCCR.  The Department of State reminds all federal, state, and local law enforcement and other government officials that all consular notification and access requirements governed by the VCCR and other international agreements continue to remain in effect in the United States.  Our respect for international law and our desire to ensure that U.S. consular officers are able to assist our citizens abroad make it a high priority for us to fulfill our international obligations concerning consular notification and access.