Bond v. United States (2011): Difference between revisions
→Background: Minor edit |
→Background: After reading several news articles, I have corrected some inaccuracies and added details and citations |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
==Background== |
==Background== |
||
The husband of Carol A. Bond of [[Lansdale, Pennsylvania]] impregnated Myrlinda Haynes and Ms. Bond told Haynes, "I am going to make your life a living hell." |
The husband of Carol A. Bond of [[Lansdale, Pennsylvania]] impregnated Myrlinda Haynes and Ms. Bond told Haynes, "I am going to make your life a living hell." Carol Bond stole two poisonous chemicals from her work, 10-chlorophenoxarsine and [[potassium]] [[dichromate]]. Bond smeared the chemicals on doorknobs, car doors, and the mailbox. Haynes suffered a chemical burn on her thumb.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Epps|first1=Garrett|title=Woman Not Guilty of Chemical Warfare; Constitution Saved|url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/supreme-court-restraint-saves-the-governments-treaty-power/372020/|accessdate=24 May 2015|work=The Atlantic Magazine|date=2014-06-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Lithwick|first1=Dahlia|title=The Case of the Poisoned Lover|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2011/02/the_case_of_the_poisoned_lover.html|accessdate=24 May 2015|work=Slate|date=2011-02-22}}</ref> Bond was indicted for stealing mail and for violation of the [[Chemical Weapons Convention]] Implementation Act of 1998. Her appeal argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment.<ref>{{cite news |author=[[Adam Liptak]] |coauthors= |title=A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/19bar.html |quote= |work=[[New York Times]] |date=October 18, 2010 |accessdate=October 18, 2010 }}</ref> The Court of Appeals found Bond lacked standing to make a Tenth Amendment claim.<ref>{{cite news |author=[[Adam Liptak]] |coauthors= |title=Court Weighs the Power of Congress|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/us/politics/23scotus.html |quote= |work=[[New York Times]] |date=February 22, 2011 |accessdate=July 26, 2011 }}</ref> |
||
==Decision== |
==Decision== |
||
Revision as of 15:45, 24 May 2015
| Bond v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 2011 Decided June 16, 2011 | |
| Full case name | Carol Anne Bond, Petitioner v. United States |
| Docket no. | 09-1227 |
| Citations | 564 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, 2-07-cr-00528-001 (E.D. Pa.); affirmed, 581 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2009); certiorari granted, 562 U. S. ___ (2010) |
| Subsequent | Case |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. X | |
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, not just states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law. The issue arose in the prosecution of an individual under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act for a local assault using a chemical irritant. The defendant argued, in part, that this application of the law violated the Constitution's federalism limitations on Congress' statutory implementation of treaties. Having decided the defendant could bring the constitutional challenge, the Court remanded the case without deciding the merits of the claims.
Background
The husband of Carol A. Bond of Lansdale, Pennsylvania impregnated Myrlinda Haynes and Ms. Bond told Haynes, "I am going to make your life a living hell." Carol Bond stole two poisonous chemicals from her work, 10-chlorophenoxarsine and potassium dichromate. Bond smeared the chemicals on doorknobs, car doors, and the mailbox. Haynes suffered a chemical burn on her thumb.[1][2] Bond was indicted for stealing mail and for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Her appeal argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment.[3] The Court of Appeals found Bond lacked standing to make a Tenth Amendment claim.[4]
Decision
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that Bond had standing to argue that a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention in this instance intruded on areas of police power reserved to the states. Justice Roberts reasoned that actions exceeding the federal government's enumerated powers undermine the sovereign interests of the states. Individuals seeking to challenge such actions are subject to Article III and prudential standing rules, but if the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, that litigant is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of American government. The Court expressed no view on the merits of Bond's challenge to the federal statute and remanded the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.[5]
Subsequent history
The Third Circuit, on remand, found that the Supreme Court's decision gave Bond standing to raise federalism questions about the federal government's power to enforce legislation that implements a treaty. However, the circuit court found that, under the 1920 Supreme Court precedent Missouri v. Holland, the legislation was indisputably valid because the treaty is valid.[6]
The case then returned to the Supreme Court in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), in which the Court ruled that the Implementation Act did not reach her conduct; it, therefore, declined to address the constitutional issue.[7]
See also
- Reid v. Covert, a 1957 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that treaties and executive agreements cannot override the Constitution
References
- ^ Epps, Garrett (2014-06-02). "Woman Not Guilty of Chemical Warfare; Constitution Saved". The Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved 24 May 2015.
- ^ Lithwick, Dahlia (2011-02-22). "The Case of the Poisoned Lover". Slate. Retrieved 24 May 2015.
- ^ Adam Liptak (October 18, 2010). "A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV". New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2010.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ Adam Liptak (February 22, 2011). "Court Weighs the Power of Congress". New York Times. Retrieved July 26, 2011.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ Adam Liptak (June 28, 2011). "A Significant Term, With Bigger Cases Ahead". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-11-15.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ Text of U.S. v. Bond (08-2677), 681 F.3d 149 (3rd Cir. 2012) is available from: leagle.com
- ^ "Bond v. United States". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/09-01227qp.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00158qp.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2007/sep/bondrelease.pdf
External links
- Epps, Garrett (February 18, 2011). "U.S. v. Bond: Reexamining the Mysterious 10th Amendment". The Atlantic.
- "The Supremes Take On the Toxic Avenger". Newsweek. 4 October 2013. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
- FindLaw