Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:07:46.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Daniel Bodansky  and
Curtis A. Bradley
Curtis A. Bradley
Affiliation:
Duke University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669.

United States Supreme Court, June 28, 2006.

In Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and that U.S. states may apply their regular procedural default rules to bar claims brought under Article 36. The Court reached the latter conclusion despite contrary reasoning by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention provides that when one party country arrests nationals of another party country, it shall inform the foreign nationals without delay that they have the right to have their consulate notified of the arrest, and to communicate with the consulate. Article 36(2) adds that these rights “shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.” The United States ratified the Vienna Convention in 1969, along with a protocol to the Convention providing that disputes between nations arising under the treaty could be heard in the ICJ.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 882 - 888
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 126 S.Ct. 2669 (2006).

2 See Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, Art. 36(l)(b), 21 UST 77, 596 UNTS 261.

3 See Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 325, 596 UNTS 487.

4 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Para. v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, 1998 ICJ REP. 248, para. 41 (Apr. 9).

5 523 U.S. 371,375(1998).

6 Id. For discussion of the Breard litigation, see, for example, Curtis, A. Bradley, Breard, Our Dualist Constitution, and the Internationalist Conception, 51 Stan. L. Rev. 529 (1999)Google Scholar, and Agora; Breard, 92 AJIL 666 (1998).

7 LaGrand (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 ICJ REP. 466, paras. 67, 73, 77, 91 (June 27); see William, J. Aceves, Case Report: LaGrand (Germany v. United States), 96 AJIL 210 (2002).Google Scholar

8 LaGrand, para. 125.

9 Id.

10 2004 ICJ REP. 12 (Mar. 31); w Dinah L. Shelton, Case Report: Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), 98 AJIL 559 (2004).

11 Avena, para. 121.

12 Id, para. 113.

13 See Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005).

14 See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent at 42, Medellin v. Dretke (No. 04–5928), at <http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/3mer/lami/2004-5928.mer.ami.pdf.

15 See id. at 38–48.

16 See Charles, Lane, U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases, Wash. Post, Mar. 10, 2005, at A01.Google Scholar

17 Justice Breyer issued a dissent, joined in full by Justices Stevens and Souter, and joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

18 Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained by authorities as a result of certain legal violations is excluded from consideration in a criminal trial. See Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2163–68 (2006).

19 See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 2795–97 (2006); id. at 2802-04 (Kennedy, J., concurring). A case report by Peter Spiro appears in this issue of the Journal.

20 See 126 S.Ct. at 2774, 2786, 2794; id. at 2799 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

21 See, e.g., Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184–85 (1982).

22 See 126 S.Ct. at 2795–96.

23 Cf. American Ins. Assoc, v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003) (finding state statute to be preempted by executive agreements).

24 See, e.g., Louis, Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution 150 (2d ed. 1996)Google Scholar (“[A]s regards U.S. foreign relations, the states ‘do not exist.’“).

25 See, e.g., Anne-Marie, Slaughter, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int’l L.J. 191 (2003).Google Scholar

26 See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 576–78 (2005).