Leal Garcia v. Texas
131 S. Ct. 2866
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Leal Garcia, a Mexican national, has lived in the U.S. since before age two and was convicted of kidnapping, raping a 16-year-old, and murdering her in Texas in 1994, receiving a death sentence.
- Leal argues his conviction and death sentence were obtained in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations due to lack of consular notification.
- He relies on ICJ findings in Avena that the U.S. violated Vienna by failing to notify him of consular rights, and seeks a stay pending Congressional action implementing that decision.
- Medellin v. Texas held that Avena and related President’s memorandum are not directly enforceable federal law, foreclosing relief based on those sources.
- The U.S. government requests a stay pending potential future legislation; the Court questions the legal basis for a stay based on unenacted legislation and cites Medellin II’s reasoning.
- The Court denies Leal’s stay petition and the habeas corpus petition; the dissent argues for a stay to avoid international-law breach and to allow Congress time to act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay is warranted pending potential implementing legislation. | Leal seeks a stay to permit Congress to enact Avena-implementing law. | Medellin I/II foreclose enforceable relief based on unenacted legislation; no stay should issue. | Stay denied. |
| Whether due process prohibits execution while unenacted legislation exists. | Due process requires staying execution to await compliance with Vienna obligations. | Medellin forecloses due process-based delay absent a valid, enforceable domestic law. | Due process claim rejected; no stay. |
| Whether executive foreign-relations considerations justify a stay. | International obligations and foreign-pol icy consequences justify delaying execution. | Legislative action, not executive delay, is required; no stay based on foreign-policy concerns absent congressional action. | No stay based on foreign-relations considerations; execution may proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (Avena not directly enforceable federal law; non-self-executing treaty limits)
- Medellín v. Texas, 554 U.S. 759 (2008) (per curiam; stay considerations depend on congressional action)
- O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1801 (2009) (absence of prospects of error does not warrant stay)
- Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005) (deference to President in foreign affairs)
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) (presidential deference in foreign-relations matters)
- FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597 (1966) (All Writs Act authority to preserve jurisdiction; potential stays)