Igartua v. United States, 654 F.3d 99

This case concerns en banc review of Igartúa III's ruling that ICCPR is not self-executing and its impact on voting rights for Puerto Rico residents.
Igartúa III held ICCPR not self-executing, thus not binding as domestic law, limiting potential treaty-based rights to Puerto Rico residents’ voting in federal elections.
Six years later, the court confirms Igartúa III controls this petition for en banc review and would affirm dismissal.
Dissenters argue the Constitution may permit enfranchisement and the ICCPR may be self-executing; they urge reconsideration in light of Medellín v. Texas and Abbott v. Abbott.
The majority relies on Medellín and Abbott to reaffirm that ICCPR is not self-executing and that en banc review is not warranted under Rule 35(a)(2).
Intervening developments and scholarly view are cited as warranting a broader en banc examination of exceptional importance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutional authority to enfranchise PR residents	Igartúa IV contends Congress may enfranchise residents via constitutional/treaty mechanisms.	Constitution does not require or authorize enfranchisement of PR residents; ICCPR not self-executing; Igartúa III controls.	No constitutional basis found; Igartúa III controls; dismissal affirmed.
ICCPPR self-executing status and private rights	ICCPPR creates enforceable individual rights in U.S. courts.	ICCPPR is not self-executing; private action requires congressional implementing statutes.	ICCPPR not self-executing; no private rights under domestic law.
ICCPPR obligations under the Supremacy Clause	Treaty obligations bind domestically once ratified, regardless of self-execution.	Non-self-executing treaties do not create domestic legal obligations enforceable in courts absent implementing legislation.	Non-self-executing ICCPR does not create private domestic obligations; requires Congress action.
Granting en banc review for exceptional importance	Issues affecting millions of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico are exceptional and require full-court consideration.	Rule 35(a)(2) does not warrant en banc review; panel decision stands.	En banc review denied; majority finds no exceptional basis to rehear; dissents disagree.

Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (ICCPR not self-executing; governing controlling ruling)
Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States, 626 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2010) (Igartúa IV; discussion of en banc reconsideration)
Medellín v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346 (U.S. 2008) (emphasizes text-focused treaty interpretation; post-ratification understanding)
Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (U.S. 2010) (textual analysis of treaty provisions and context)
Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1900) (treaty interpretation and executive/legislative balance in law of nations)