Just one month ago, the high court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals in a bitterly divided 5-4 decision, citing in part the strong weight of international sentiment against it.

This time, justices were asked to determine the role of international law in U.S. courts in the case of Jose Medellin, who says he was denied access to legal help from his consulate on a rape and murder charge in violation of a U.S. treaty.

Medellin says he is entitled to a federal court hearing based on a violation of the Constitution's clause making treaties the ''supreme law of the land.''

In their comments from the bench, several justices seemed reluctant to decide who has final say over interpreting that treaty - state or federal courts, the U.S. president or an international tribunal - after President Bush last month ordered new state court hearings for Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row.

Medellin was one of five gang members sentenced to death by a state court for raping and murdering Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in 1993. Under the 1963 Vienna Convention, which the Senate ratified in 1969, Medellin was entitled to notify Mexican diplomats when he was arrested.

It wasn't until four years later, after his death sentence was affirmed by a Texas appeals court, that Medellin learned of that right. Texas now contends that Medellin's claim is barred in federal court because he failed to raise that objection at the state trial.

The case, which has attracted worldwide attention, is seen as a test of how much weight the Supreme Court will give in domestic death penalty cases to the International Court of Justice, or ICJ, in The Hague, which ruled last year that the 51 convictions violated the Vienna Convention.

After Medellin appealed to the Supreme Court, Bush ordered the states to comply with the ICJ ruling. At the same time, however, he made clear that it was a president's - not the judicial branch's - decision whether to abide by international law.

After Bush ordered the new hearings, Medellin's attorneys asked the Supreme Court this month to put his case on hold so they could pursue relief in state court first. But the justices did not immediately act on that request.

The case is Medellin v. Dretke, 04-5928.