Right Wing Justices Limit Inherent Presidential Authority

In deciding the case of Medellin v. Texas today a majority of Supreme Court justices including Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas rejected Bush claims of inherent Presidential authority.  

Medellin, a Mexican national and convicted murderer had been sentenced to death by Texas.  The International Court of Justice had ruled that pursuant to a treaty to which the United States was signatory, Medellin was entitled to a reconsideration of his sentence.  The President had issued a memorandum stating that the US would comply with its treaty obligations by having State courts give effect to the decision of the Internatinal Court of Justice.

Based on this, Medellin brought a habeas corpus petitition in Texas court.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied habeas relief to Medellin.

At the US Supreme Court level, two questions were actually considered.  One was whether the relevant treaty by its own terms required Texas to comply. The second was, if the treaty by its terms did not require compliance, did the President have authority to require it?

Unsurprisingly, Bush claimed that the President has this authority. He based thiss claim on Presidential authority to resolve claims disputes with foreign nations.  The Court noted that the authority to resolve foreign claims disputes was very narrow and limited and not a valid basis for asserting executive power in other areas.

Medellin also argued that Bush has the Constitutional power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, a power that President Bush routinely cites to in making signing statements.  The Supreme Court's response to this is worthy of quoting in full:

The United States, however, does not rely upon the President’s responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U. S. Const., Art. II, §3. We think this a wise concession. This authority allows the President to execute the laws, not make them.

(Justice Stevens agreed with the majority that the President's memorandum was not binding law.  Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter did not reach the question as they determined that Texas was bound by the treaty and decision directly; however, they implied that it was a much closer question than the majority thought, which would seem to be an unfortunate and unnecessary statement.)