Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas

Texas executed a Mexican Thursday night. The state broke no US laws and had no binding obligation to follow International law or treaty. The man, convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl, had been in the country for several years prior to his crime, arrest, and his subsequent years of imprisonment.

The President, appealing to pending future legislation, International decorum, and potential risk to US citizens abroad, asked the Supreme Court to halt the execution. By a 5-4 decision, it did not.

The majority opinion goes unattributed. Here's highlights:

Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be.

... The United States and JUSTICE BREYER complain of the grave international consequences that will follow from Leal’s execution. Post, at 4. Congress evidently did not find these consequences sufficiently grave to prompt its enactment of implementing legislation, and we will follow the law as written by Congress. We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President,” post, at 6, presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.

The minority opinion includes this ...

Thus, on the one hand, international legal obligations, related foreign policy considerations, the prospect of legislation, and the consequent injustice involved should that legislation, coming too late for Leal, help others in identical circumstances all favor granting a stay. And issuing a brief stay until the end of September, when the Court could consider this matter in the ordinary course, would put Congress on clear notice that it must act quickly. On the other hand, the State has an interest in proceeding with an immediate execution. But it is difficult to see how the State’s interest in the immediate execution of an individual convicted of capital murder 16 years ago can outweigh the considerations that support additional delay, perhaps only until the end of the summer ...

... In reaching its contrary conclusion, the Court ignores the appeal of the President in a matter related to foreign affairs, it substitutes its own views about the likelihood of congressional action for the views of Executive Branch officials who have consulted with Members of Congress, and it denies the request by four Members of the Court to delay the execution until the Court can discuss the matter at Conference in September. In my view, the Court is wrong in each respect.

I respectfully dissent.

Compared to the majority opinion, the dissent sounds rather pointed.