Keynote address: A community of reason and rights

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 77, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 583-607

  Treanor, William Michael ^a   Koh, Harold Hongju ^b  

^a Fordham Law School ^*

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58049151710     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (89)

1. BRANDT GOLDSTEIN, STORMING THE COURT: HOW A BAND OF YALE LAW STUDENTS SUED THE PRESIDENT-AND WON (2005).
2. HAROLD HONGJU KOH, THE NATIONAL SECURITY CONSTITUTION: SHARING POWER AFTER THE IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR (1990).
3. See Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. to Be Chief Justice of the United States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 200-01 (2005) (statement of Judge John G. Roberts), available at http://frwebgate.access. gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname= 109-senate-hearings&docid=f:23539.wais.
4. See Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 471 (2006) [hereinafter Alito Confirmation Hearing] (statement of Judge Samuel A. Alito), available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109-senate- hearings&docid=f:25429.wais.
5. Aharon Barak, President, Israeli Supreme Court, Address to Students at Yale Law School (Sept. 28, 2007). Aharon Barak's address was not recorded or transcribed.
6. 536 U.S. 304, 316-17 n.21 (2002).
7. 543 U.S. 551, 577 (2005).
8. 539 U.S. 558, 573 (2003).
9. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
10. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
11. Medellín v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (per curiam).
12. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669 (2006).
13. Medellín v. Texas, Nos. 06-984, 08-5573, 08-5574, 2008 WL 3821478 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2008) (per curiam).
14. Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution, H.R. Res. 568, 108th Cong. (2004) (seeking to restrict references to foreign law in interpreting federal law). The bill was reintroduced in the House the next year. See H.R. Res. 97, 109th Cong. (2005).
15. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 474 (1793).
16. The Nereide, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 388, 423 (1815).
17. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407 (1819).
18. Id. at 405 (emphasis added).
19. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163 (1895).
20. 175 U.S. 677, 714 (1900) ("[I]t is the duty of this court, sitting as the highest prize court of the United States, and administering the law of nations, to declare and adjudge that the capture was unlawful, and without probable cause ....").
21. Jeremy Waldron, Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium, 119 HARV. L. REV. 129,132 (2005).
22. 4 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *66.
23. Sarah H. Cleveland, Our International Constitution, 31 YALE J. INT'L L. 1, 12-87 (2006).
24. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
25. ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT AT THE BAR OF POLITICS 16-23 (1962).
26. See Harold Hongju Koh, Foreword: On American Exceptionalism, 55 STAN. L. REV. 1479, 1481 n.4 (2003).
27. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).
28. 542 U.S. 692 (2004).
29. See, e.g., Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith & David H. Moore, Sosa, Customary International Law, and the Continuing Relevance of Erie, 120 HARV. L. REV. 869 (2007).
30. William A. Fletcher, International Human Rights in American Courts, 93 VA. L. REV. 653, 664 (2007).
31. E.g., Koh, supra note 26.
32. See Alito Confirmation Hearing, supra note 4, at 471.
33. JACK GOLDSMITH, THE TERROR PRESIDENCY: LAW AND JUDGMENT INSIDE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION (2007).
34. Id. at 60.
35. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 539-54 (2004) (Souter, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment).
36. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749, 2796 (2006).
37. See id. at 2794-98; see also Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135.
38. Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2798 ("Common Article 3 obviously tolerates a great degree of flexibility in trying individuals captured during armed conflict; its requirements are general ones, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems. But requirements they are nonetheless.").
39. Id. at 2802 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part).
40. See id.
41. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
42. See id. at 564-67 (explaining that the "evidence of national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles is similar, and in some respects parallel, to the evidence Atkins held sufficient to demonstrate a national consensus against the death penalty for the mentally retarded").
43. Id. at 575, 578 (emphasis added).
44. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008); Munaf v. Geren, 128 S. Ct. 2207 (2008), reh'g denied, No. 07-394, 2008 WL 3822186 (U.S. Aug. 18, 2008); Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. 2749; Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004); Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).
45. See, e.g., Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).
46. See, e.g., Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004); Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003).
47. See, e.g., Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005); F. Hoffman- La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004).
48. See, e.g., Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005); Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005).
49. See, e.g., Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004).
50. See, e.g., Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005); Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005).
51. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
52. See, e.g., Medellin v. Texas, Nos. 06-984, 08-5573, 08-5574, 2008 WL 3821478 (U.S. Aug. 5, 2008) (per curiam); Medellín v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346 (2008); Sanchez- Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 2669 (2006); Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (per curiam).
53. See, e.g., Gonzales v. O Centra Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 126 S. Ct. 1211 (2006) (United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances); Olympic Airways v. Husain, 540 U.S. 644 (2004) (Warsaw Convention).
54. See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004).
55. Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 67 (1804) ("[I]t has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains . ...").
56. see, e.g., HAROLD hONGJU kOH, tRANSNATIONAL lITIGATION IN uNITED sTATES COURTS 347-60 (2008).
57. 159 U.S. 113 (1895).
58. See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 439-72 (1964) (White, J., dissenting).
59. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) at 67.
60. Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court, 482 U.S. 522, 555 (1987) (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
61. Id. at 567 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
62. See Harold Hongju Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 AM. J. INT'L L. 43, 45 (2004), on which the discussion that follows is based.
63. See, e.g., Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 673 n.42 (1977) (quoting Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27-28 (1949)); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 488 n.59, 521-22 (1966) (quoting from a 1954 decision by the Lord Justice General of India and citing experiences in other countries); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 167 (1955) (finding a practice "supported by long-standing tradition here and in other English-speaking nations"); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 169 (1952) (writing that the Due Process Clause obliges courts to ascertain whether a given law or practice offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples"). More recently, the Court has spoken more broadly about "civilized societies," without regard to the particular language they may speak. See, e.g., Ford v. Wainright, 477 U.S. 399, 409 (1986) (noting "the natural abhorrence civilized societies feel at killing one who has no capacity to come to grips with his own conscience or deity").
64. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 572-73, 576-77 (2003).
65. Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 997 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
66. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 977 (1997) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
67. For a catalogue of decisions, see generally Harold Hongju Koh, Paying "Decent Respect" to World Opinion on the Death Penalty, 35 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1085, 1118-19 & n.140 (2002).
68. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958).
69. See, e.g., Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 830-31 (1988) (plurality opinion) (evaluating whether death penalty for fifteen-year-old offenders violates Eighth Amendment's "civilized standards of decency" in part by looking to the prohibition of the execution of minors by the Soviet Union and nations of Western Europe); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 796 n.22 (1982) ("[T]he doctrine of felony murder has been abolished in England and India, severely restricted in Canada and a number of other Commonwealth countries, and is unknown in continental Europe."); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 596 n.10 (1977) (finding international practices regarding death penalty for rape relevant to its "evolving standards" analysis).
70. See Brief of Amici Curiae Diplomats Morton Abramowitz et al. in Support of Petitioner, McCarver v. North Carolina, 533 U.S. 975 (2001) (No. 00-8727), 2001 WL 648607. The amicus brief was later refiled in Atkins v. Virginia. See Joint Motion of All Amici in McCarver v. North Carolina, No. 00-8727, to Have Their McCarver Amicus Briefs Considered in This Case in Support of Petitioner, Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (No. 00-8452), 2001 WL 1682012.
71. Baktybek Abdrisaev, Letter to the Editor, Penalties in Kyrgyzstan, N.Y. TIMES, June 30, 2001, at A14 ("[I]t is the policy of [Kyrgyzstan's] executive branch not to impose the death penalty for any crime or in any circumstance.").
72. JOHN HART ELY, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND 21 (1996).
73. See generally Cleveland, supra note 23.
74. As Justice Breyer put it in his 2003 speech to the American Society of International law, [T]he transnational law that is being created is not simply a product of treatywriters, legislatures, or courts. We in America know full well that in a democracy, law, perhaps most law, is not decreed from on high but bubbles up from the interested publics, affected groups, specialists, legislatures, and others, all interacting through meetings, journal articles, the popular press, legislative hearings, and in many other ways. That is the democratic process in action. Stephen Breyer, Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Keynote Address at the Ninety- Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (Apr. 4, 2003), in 97 AM. SOC'Y INT'L L. PROC. 265, 268 (2003) (emphasis added).
75. GOLDSMITH, supra note 33, at 215 (emphasis added).
76. Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (citing Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 538 (1911); Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191 (1909)).
77. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 575-78 (2005).
78. Id. at 578.
79. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 725 (2004).
80. William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights. 90 HARV.L. REV. 489(1977).
81. Statute of the International Court of Justice, June 26, 1945, art. 38(1)(b), 59 Stat. 1055, 1060.
82. United States v. Then, 56 F.3d 464, 469 (2d Cir. 1995).
83. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 2 (U.S. 1776).
84. Id. para. 1.
85. JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST: A THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (1980).
86. JOHN HART ELY, WAR AND RESPONSIBILITY: CONSTITUTIONAL LESSONS OF VIETNAM AND ITS AFTERMATH (1993).
87. ELY, supra note 72.
88. See Id. at 18-24.
89. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958).