Their work will appear in “The Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases,” published annually by the American Bar Association to assist journalists in their coverage of the Court. Each article offers a summary of the case, the issues of law to be considered, case facts, a detailed analysis and the legal significance of the case.
Dunham’s article deals with the case of Jose Medellin in Texas. Medellin, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, seeks habeas review from a Texas court. The request is based on a finding by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the Unted States violated Article 36 of the Vienna Convention in his case and the cases of 50 other detained Mexican nationals by failing to notify them of their right to consular notification.
Following the ICJ decision, President George W. Bush authored a memorandum requiring the states, including Texas, to follow the decision of the ICJ in the case of Medellin and the 50 other Mexican nationals named in the ICJ decision. The Texas courts refused to allow Medellin post-conviction review based on the ICJ decision and the Presidential memorandum, arguing the President’s memorandum is an unauthorized Executive action and cannot preempt the Texas law of post-conviction review.
Gaylord writes about a primary election system being used in Washington State. Candidates are allowed to disclose their political party “preference” on election ballots, even if the candidate is not the nominee of that party. Under this blanket primary system, voters could vote for any candidate and the top two candidates, regardless of party preference, advanced to the general election. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California’s blanket primary on the grounds that it violated the political parties’ First Amendment right of association. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Washington’s system because its system was “materially indistinguishable” from the California system.
