Sanchez-Llamas v Oregon

Facts
Article 36(b) of the [Vienna Convention] grants consular rights to foreigners accused of crimes
Bustillo arrested, charged, convicted of murder without consular access
B first alleges violation of Vienna rights on state PCR motion
B's PCR motion denied on procedural default grounds
B argues on federal § 2254 motion that Vienna trumps procedural default rules
Government argues that the case is controlled by Breard v Greene
After Breard, however, ICJ held that procedural default rules prevent "full effect" for Vienna as the treaty requires

Issue: Is the Court bound by the ICJ's holding?

The Court, per Roberts, CJ, says no.

Quoting Marbury v Madison, Roberts notes that the Article III federal courts have exclusive judicial power over the interpretation of the Constitution and of treaties. In contrast, nothing in the treaty creating the ICJ or the Vienna Convention suggests that the ICJ's decisions should trump the Court's decisions. Rather, the ICJ's decisions, like all other international courts, deserve only "respectful consideration." As a result, the Court's reasoning in Breard v Greene controls, and the state procedural default rules should govern B's claim, not the ICJ's decision.

Breyer, dissenting, agrees that the ICJ's decisions do not bind the US courts, but points out that uniformity between nations is an important goal both of treaty interpretation and of the ICJ itself, and that the Court's divergence from the ICJ and the nations implies that the Court is possibly wrong.