Third Case Heard by Supreme Court

By Lottie Watts

The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in Medellin v. Texas.   It was the second to last case that the court will hear before the term ends and decisions are handed down.

The case concerns the constitutionality of President Bush’s order to Texas courts to grant relief in a death penalty case involving the Vienna Convention on Consular relations.

The justices asked many questions of both the petitioner and the respondent.

 ”There were a few difficult questions, specifically from Justice Ginsburg and Justice Souter, but overall I felt as though I was able to gain at least some support for my argument from many of the justices,” said respondent Josh Ehrenpfort, who is representing Jose Ernesto Medellin.  “I don’t think I could have done much more in the way of preparation, but I still felt like I got tripped up a couple of times.”

 Petitioner Scott Covit, represented the state of Texas, agreed that arguments went well.

 ”Fortunately, I was able to get in all of the main points that I was striving to include,” Covit said.   “With any luck the Supreme Court would have absorbed those main points as I tried to strenuously focus on them and that that would help for my case’s desired outcome.”

The Office of the Solicitor General, represented by Chris Curran, participated in this case and argued on behalf of the petitioner for approximately five minutes, and the petitioner reserved five minutes of his time after the court heard from the respondent.

Curran argued that the president has the power to go over the heads of the judiciary

“That is a grounded principle that we live by,” Curran said.

However, he said that the president is giving the judiciary a chance to effectively work by not using a presidential pardon.

“We believe that it is considerably paramount that the Supreme Court rules in our favor because of two reasons,” said Covit.  “The first is that in the interest of foreign relations, the United States government should not fall back on treaties that are signed and binding. The second is that this case would more finely establish jurisdictional lines in the area of foreign powers in the branches of the Courts, Congress, the Executive, and the State Governments and authorities.”

Ehrenport argued that the president is trying to influence the judicial process.

“The strongest point in my argument is that this Court has constantly affirmed the idea that the president is prohibited from making the laws,” Ehrenpfort said. “I think Texas has shown that the President did in fact try to unilaterally make policy here, thereby making his actions unconstitutional.”

“It is important for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Texas because of the effect this could on future domestic affairs,” Ehrenpfort said. “Ruling in favor of the petitioner would grant the president a dangerous amount of unilateral authority.  The Court must rule in favor of Texas so as to check this unconstitutional act by the President, and to prevent any more in the future.”

NOTE: Arguments in this case were heard by the real Supreme Court on October 10.