The beginning premise for any stay, and indeed for the assumption that Congress or the legislature might seek to intervene in this suit, must be that petitioner’s confession was obtained unlawfully. This is highly unlikely as a matter of domestic or international law. Other arguments seeking to establish that a violation of the Convention constitutes grounds for showing the invalidity of the state court judgment, for instance because counsel was inadequate, are also insubstantial... The Department of Justice of the United States is well aware of these proceedings and has not chosen to seek our intervention. Its silence is no surprise: The United States has not wavered in its position that petitioner was not prejudiced by his lack of consular access.
The execution was carried out despite opposition from international leaders including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, along with the Mexican government, which had appealed the sentence to ICJ in June.
In March, the Supreme Court ruled in Medellin v. Texas that neither a 2005 memorandum from President Bush ordering Texas to rehear several cases against Mexican nationals nor the March 2004 ICJ decision that order was based on were binding on Texas officials who had refused to rehear Medellin's case. Medellin's latest appeal before Texas authorities was rejected last week by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Critics of Medellin's appeal often point to the fact that he failed to assert his status as a Mexican national during his trial.