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
The dispute concerns whether the United States must comply with an International Court of Justice judgment under treaty obligations and the President’s authority to implement those obligations.
Background and question before the Court
The petitioner contends that the United States, by ratifying the Optional Protocol, the UN Charter, and the ICJ Statute, agreed to comply with any ICJ decision in cases to which it is a party.
Justices asked whether the ICJ can issue such a judgment and whether the President can displace the Court’s authority.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Jose Ernesto Medellin)
The petitioner argues that the United States, through its treaty commitments, is obligated to obey any ICJ judgment in cases to which it is a party.
Respondent (Texas)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
United States
According to United States, the United States asserts that the President’s two‑paragraph memorandum is itself binding federal law.
According to United States, it also disputes that the treaties provide the source of the President’s authority and points to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez‑Llamas as controlling.
According to Mr. Donovan, the President’s determination is an independent source of authority, and without it the Court would apply the treaty obligation under the Supremacy Clause.
According to Mr. Cruz, the President has authority to create new binding law to implement treaties, even if the obligation is not self‑executing.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 10:04 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Scalia asked questions about the nature of ICJ judgments and presidential authority.
Petitioner and United States counsel presented arguments concerning treaty obligations and the President’s memorandum.
- [1] 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdf, p. 23
- [5] 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdf, p. 3
- [6] 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdf, p. 39
- [7] 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdf, p. 21
- [8] 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdf, p. 76
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.
- 08b75437dcf955aa200a-r1-fe2d9545532c5a62.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.