By: Maggie Sterning

ICJ Justices read the verdict of the Court

BACKGROUND: 

23 NOVEMBER 2025- the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard the La Grand case, United States of America v. Germany. On 7 January 1982, Karl and Walter LaGrand were arrested in Marana, Arizona, by Arizona law enforcement on several crimes. In a failed bank robbery, the brothers had murdered a bank manager and stabbed another bank employee, leaving them in critical condition. The brothers were convicted of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, attempted armed robbery and two counts of kidnapping. The brothers were later sentenced to death. On 30 January 1984, the Supreme Court of Arizona rejected both Walter and Karl LaGrand’s appeals. The LaGrand brothers were born in Germany but were raised in Arizona, United States and remained there for a majority of their lives. However, they never received American citizenship. 

The Advocates from Germany claim that Arizona authorities did not inform the brothers about their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, nor did they notify the German Consulate of their arrest and detention. Five years later, the brothers were notified of their rights by fellow inmates, not by Arizona authorities. The (federal) Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit rejected the brothers’ appeals, confirming the perceived Convention violations were defaulted and could no longer be sought as an argument. The Advocates from Germany alleged the United States and authorities of Arizona were in full breach of Article 36(1)(b) of the Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36(1)(c), 36(2) of the Convention on Consular Relations, and failed its obligations under Article 41 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. 

ARGUMENT: 

Advocates from the United States stated that authorities were unaware that the brothers were German nationals and were under the assumption that they were American citizens; therefore, the United States could not be in violation of the Vienna Convention. The United States acknowledged the jurisdiction of the ICJ but said it must prioritize domestic law. They were adamant that the US Constitution was followed and that both brothers received due process. 

Germany rebutted the United States claim that the brothers were American citizens, stating that they did not indicate on the prison intake form that they were US citizens and claimed German citizenship multiple times. Further, Germany asserted that the Arizona’s Governor’s Office was made aware of the brother’s non-citizenship, yet failed to provide consulate services. The United States maintained its position, stating that there was no failure to investigate, and even if there was, it is not obligated to investigate or confirm citizenship. 

OPINION:

The Majority Opinion found that the United States did not fulfill its obligations as a signatory to the Vienna Convention. The Court requested that the United States preserve all evidence regarding the criminal processing of Karl and Walter LaGrand and any other case involving the arrest, detention or imprisonment of foreign nationals. Second, the Court requests that upon discovery of foreign citizenship, the United States will provide immediate notification to prisoners of their right to consular relations in accordance with the VCCR Article 36(2). The Court pleads that authorities in the United States and the State of Arizona suspend the scheduled execution of Walter LaGrand. 

The Concurring Opinion stated that the Court would be overstepping its function and jurisdiction to request, order or recommend that the United States suspend or delay the execution of Walter LaGrand. However, they concur with the recommended measures of the majority opinion.

Advocates Cooper Spacil and Allie Stephens of Germany, said they were pleased with the Court’s ruling. “I think this was slightly anticipated, but obviously nothing’s guaranteed,” said Advocate Spacil. Advocate Stephens added, saying, “We felt like we did very well with our oral arguments and that was reflected in the Court’s opinion.” The United States was not present for the verdict reading.