Onward to the 18th Century!

I want to know what this means:

Although the Bush administration objected to the ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the president wrote a memorandum ordering the state courts to comply.

He said the ICJ's decision must be carried out because the US had agreed to abide by the court's rulings in such cases.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the ICJ's decision could not be forced upon the states.

The president may not "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law", Mr Roberts wrote.

Politically, it's a potential PR boost for Bush - he tried, he really really tried! - but for once I'm not concerned about that.

I'm concerned that it seems like the Supreme Court just ruled that international agreements signed by U.S. rank lower than.... the will of individual states?

Really?

Really?

I must be missing something. It sounds like Roberts just introduced one hell of a doctrine of states' rights.

Any attorneys (past, present or future) out there want to comment? Please?

h/t CA.