Term: 2010
Docket: 09-1227
Carol Anne Bond, Petitioner v. United States
- Pro
09-1227 BOND V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 581 F.3d 128 ORDER OF NOVEMBER 10, 2010 STEPHEN R. MCALLISTER, ESQUIRE, OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT. CERT. GRANTED 10/12/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: Petitioner admitted that she tried to injure her husband's paramour by spreading toxic chemicals on the woman's car and mailbox. Instead of allowing local officials to handle this domestic dispute, the federal prosecutor indicted petitioner under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 229(a), enacted by Congress to implement the United States' obligations under a 1993 treaty addressing the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. Facing a sentence of six years in prison, petitioner challenged the statute and her resulting conviction as exceeding the federal government's enumerated powers and impermissible under the Tenth Amendment. Declining to reach petitioner's constitutional arguments, and in acknowledged conflict with decisions from other courts of appeals, the Third Circuit held that, when the state and its officers are not party to the proceedings, a private party has no standing to challenge the federal statute under which she is convicted as in excess of Congress's enumerated powers and in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The question presented is: Whether a criminal defendant convicted under a federal statute has standing to challenge her conviction on grounds that, as applied to her, the statute is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-2677
In the case of Carol Anne Bond v. United States, 2010, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that individuals may have standing to challenge federal laws under the Tenth Amendment. The petitioner, Carol Anne Bond was convicted under a federal statute implementing an international chemical weapons treaty for attempting to poison her husband's mistress. She argued that this application of the law violated her rights as it was a matter typically handled by state law enforcement and not within federal jurisdiction. Initially, lower courts held she did not have standing to raise these claims but on appeal in 2011, SCOTUS unanimously reversed this decision stating that Ms.Bond had indeed suffered direct and concrete harm giving her individual standing to challenge constitutionality of statutes where she is subject.
In the dissenting opinion for Carol Anne Bond v. United States, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, argued that the majority had unnecessarily avoided a constitutional question regarding the scope of Congress's treaty-implementing powers. They contended that this case could have been resolved on statutory grounds alone without addressing whether or not Congress has broad authority to implement treaties. The dissenters believed that federal law should be interpreted narrowly in order to avoid encroaching on state police power and infringing upon individual rights protected under the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, they would have held that federal chemical weapons laws did not apply to Bond's local criminal conduct because it was a domestic dispute traditionally handled by state authorities.
