Opinion ID: 1195424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Views of the United States Are Entitled to Substantial Deference

Text: The views of amicus the United States constitute another very powerful reason for concluding that private individuals do not have rights that can be vindicated in a damages suit for failure to be informed about consular notification and access. Li, 206 F.3d at 67 (Selya & Boudin, JJ., concurring). We place great weight on the interpretation of a treaty by the Executive of our federal government. See Medellín, 552 U.S. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 1349; Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184-85, 102 S.Ct. 2374, 72 L.Ed.2d 765 (1982) (Although not conclusive, the meaning attributed to treaty provisions by the Government agencies charged with their negotiation and enforcement is entitled to great weight.). In the instant case, two federal agenciesthe Department of State and the Department of Justicehave jointly submitted an amicus brief to our Court on behalf of the United States in support of defendants' position regarding the existence vel non of individual rights that can be vindicated privately in courts. Cf. id. at 184-85 & n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 2374 (stating that the interpretation of a treaty set forth in an amicus brief by the Department of State was entitled to great weight). Plaintiff argues that the deference we owe the position of the United States is diminished here because the United States has previously argued, before an international tribunal, that Article 36 creates judicially enforceable individual rights. In particular, plaintiff directs us to the official pleading of the United States in Case Concerning U.S. Diplomatic & Consular Staff in Tehran ( U.S.v.Iran ), 1980 I.C.J. 3 (May 24). We disagree that this pleading reflects an inconsistency from the view to which it has unfailingly adhered that the Vienna Convention does not create domestically enforceable federal law of the sort that would support plaintiff claims, Medellín, 552 U.S. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 1361; nor does this persuade us to give less than great weight to the views expressed in the amicus brief. Plaintiff emphasizes that in its pleading to the ICJ in the 1980 litigation involving Iran's taking of American diplomatic and consular staff as hostages, the United States argued that Article 36 establishes rights not only for the consular officer but, perhaps even more importantly, for the nationals of the sending State who are assured access to consular officers and through them to others. Memorial of the Government of the United States of America, Case Concerning U.S. Diplomatic & Consular Staff in Tehran ( U.S.v.Iran ), 1982 I.C.J. Pleadings 121, 174 (Jan. 12, 1980). This statement, however, must be understood in context. The opening sentence of the section containing the statement reads as follows: Pursuant to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Government of Iran is under an international legal obligation to the United States to ensure that United States consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them, that United States nationals in Iran have the same freedom with respect to communication with an access to consular oficers of the sending State, and that United States consular officers have the right to visit United States nationals who are in prison, custody, or detention. Id. at 173 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). This sentence makes clear that whatever derivative protections Article 36 might provide to individualseven if these protections may be referred to as rightsthe legal obligations arising thereunder are owed to the United States, not to the individuals themselves. Cf. Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 289 n. 7, 122 S.Ct. 2268 (rejecting the argument that any reference to `rights,' even as a shorthand means of describing standards and procedures imposed ... should give rise to a statute's enforceability under § 1983). Thus, it is manifestly the case that, in its pleading to the ICJ, the United States was not suggesting that the American hostages taken by Iran ought to have access to the courts of Iran in order to vindicate their individual rights under the Convention. Accordingly, we do not find the pleading to be inconsistent with the current views of the United States, [28] to which we must continue to accord great weight. [29]