Petitioner contends that if the Avena decision is binding, the procedural default rules of Texas are completely preempted. As Justice Breyer noted in the Bustillo dissent, that would be an extreme interpretation of Avena. A reasonable interpretation is that procedural default rules are not preempted under Avena unless the Vienna Convention violation itself caused the default.

In the present case, Medellín’s first state habeas petition, filed with the assistance of the consulate, claimed only one form of prejudice—the obtaining and admission of his confession. The claim of prejudice he makes now—lack of assistance in making his case in mitigation—was defaulted after the consulate had actual notice. Avena does not preclude application of the standard default rules to this claim.

Medellín’s confession claim has been addressed on the merits in alternative holdings by both the state and federal courts. Nothing in Avena requires a third review. Further, in light of Sanchez-Llamas and Avena itself, these rulings were manifestly correct. Regardless of how the Court resolves the international law issues in this case, there is no need for a remand for further proceedings. This case has already gone on far too long and had far too many proceedings. This Court reviews judgments, not opinions. The judgment was correct and should be affirmed outright, bringing this case to an already overdue close.