October Term 2005 · Docket 04-10566

Does the Vienna Convention grant individuals enforceable consular rights?

the sides that brought the case seek individual treaty rights. Oregon argues the treaty binds states only.

Official caption
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Gartlan argued Article 36 confers individual rights.

    Mr. Stancil argued the treaty was violated directly.

    Ms. Williams called the requested rule revolutionary.

    Mr. Thro argued treaty claims should not exceed constitutional claims.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. the sides that brought the case claim it creates individual rights. Oregon asserts it creates state obligations only.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 29, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want individual enforceable consular rights.

Oregon wants the treaty to bind states only.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue Article 36 creates individual rights.

Oregon argues the treaty creates state obligations only.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked about individual refusal of consular contact.

Justice Ginsburg asked about treaty partner views on individual rights.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines whether individuals can sue over consular notification failures. It shapes how states handle foreign detainees. It clarifies the scope of treaty enforcement in criminal trials.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON