This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Peter Gartlan, counsel for petitioner (No. 04-10566), according to Peter Gartlan, counsel for petitioner (No. 04-10566), petitioner Moises Sanchez‑Llamas argues that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations gives individuals a right to be notified of their consular representation.
The statements that the petitioner seeks to suppress occurred about eight hours after the initial arrest.
According to Mr. Stancil, petitioner claims that the State failed to provide the required consular notification, violating the Vienna Convention.
The State Department says it has taken extensive steps, such as training videos and consular‑notice cards, to ensure compliance with the treaty.
Background and question before the Court
According to Peter Gartlan, counsel for petitioner (No. 04-10566), according to Peter Gartlan, counsel for petitioner (No. 04-10566), the case presents the question whether Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations confers enforceable rights on individuals such as Mr. Sanchez‑Llamas.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Peter Gartlan, counsel for petitioner (No. 04-10566), according to Peter Gartlan, counsel for petitioner (No. 04-10566), petitioner argues that Article 36 creates a right to consular notification.
According to Mr. Thro, petitioner contends that failure to advise the defendant of his consular right is comparable to a failure to advise of the right to counsel.
Respondent Position
According to State Department, the State Department reports that it has distributed training materials and consular‑notice cards to law‑enforcement agencies to comply with the Vienna Convention.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia inquired about what remedies other countries provide for these rights.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter questioned how domestic law should apply the treaty’s substantive provisions.
Justice Breyer asked whether the United States has a legal obligation to provide an effective remedy under the treaty.
Justice Souter further questioned whether Virginia permits a collateral‑review claim of ineffective assistance based on Vienna Convention violations.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the State has an obligation to inquire about the defendant’s nationality and advise of consular rights.
Chief Justice Roberts raised a question about the need to give Miranda warnings before asking about citizenship.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy followed up on whether the State must advise the defendant of consular rights during booking or interrogation.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether any relief beyond suppression was being sought.
- [1] 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdf, p. 9
- [2] 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdf, p. 11
- [3] 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdf, p. 31
- [4] 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdf, p. 56
- [5] 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdf, p. 73
- [6] 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdf, p. 74
- [7] 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdf, p. 75
- [8] 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdf, p. 48
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 04aa83179435a766649b-r1-c9044ca348d30912.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.