There are a number of articles in the press today about Medellin v. Texas, to be argued Wednesday. Patty Reinert has this article in the Houston Chronicle. From the UK comes this article in the Guardian.

James Oliphant of the Chicago Tribune has this story. I was rather surprised by this passage:

But Kent Scheidegger of the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims-rights advocacy group, said the case is about a heavy-handed federal government interfering with state affairs.

No, actually, I didn't say that. What my brief says, what our press release says, and what I told Mr. Oliphant, is that compliance with the Avena decision does not require reopening this case. The claim of prejudice Medellin is making now was defaulted after the Mexican Consulate had knowledge of his case, and Avena does not preclude enforcement of default rules in that circumstance.