It isn't often that President Bush supports the right of a murderer to have a new hearing or that the Supreme Court isn't sympathetic to his expansive understanding of his own powers. But the president was rebuffed 6-3 by the justices this week in a decision that harms the international reputation of the United States.

In the case of Medellin v. Texas, Mr. Bush certainly does not condone or defend the crimes that put Jose Ernesto Medellin on death row in Texas. The administration's involvement was in support of a greater principle about international treaty obligations.

The accused gang member, a Mexican national, was convicted of the gang rape and brutal murders of two Houston teenagers in 1993. Since he confessed to the murders, there isn't much doubt about his guilt. But authorities failed to inform him of his right to notify Mexican consular officials of his detention, a right the United States agreed to under the Vienna Convention it ratified in 1969.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, ruled in 2004 that Jose Ernesto Medellin and 50 other Mexican prisoners be granted new hearings. Mr. Bush signed a memorandum declaring that states, including Texas, should do so in deference to the treaty obligation.

The court majority said the president can decree no such thing. As the official summary of the opinions says, "While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be 'self-executing.' " This one did not, the court said.

At least this counterintuitive finding acknowledged the common-sense reality of Mr. Bush's position: "The president seeks to vindicate plainly compelling interests in ensuring the reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, protecting relations with foreign governments, and demonstrating commitment to the role of international law. But those interests do not allow the court to set aside first principles."

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in a dissent joined by Justice David H. Souter and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, started by quoting a first principle that would seem to be even more to the point: "The Constitution's Supremacy Clause provides that "all Treaties ... which shall be made ... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." Apparently not.

And because they are not, America's word isn't what it was in the world community. While there is some comfort in the court reminding the president that his power isn't absolute, it is a bad decision for those plainly compelling interests of the nation.