Bond v. United States
 | |
| Bond v. United States | |
| Reference: 564 U.S. 211 | |
| Term: 2011 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: February 22, 2011 Decided: June 16, 2011 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice Charles John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Anthony Kennedy • Antonin Scalia • Sonia Sotomayor • Clarence Thomas | |
| Concurring | |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer | |
Bond v. United States is a case that was decided on June 16, 2011, by the United States Supreme Court that instructed the lower court to consider Tenth Amendment arguments that Congress did not have the authority to establish enforcement of overly broad federal laws. The case concerned plaintiff Carol Anne Bond, who stole and purchased chemicals that she used to harm a friend with whom her husband had an affair and conceived a child. Bond was charged with several violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998.[1]
In district court, Bond moved to dismiss the case because Congress' enforcement of the act subverted the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court denied her motion and she was sentenced to six years in prison. She renewed her challenge of the act in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the court ruled that she did not have standing to appeal.[1] Bond then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which held that the lower court had to consider the case on its merits. The lower court ruled that the act was within Congress' power to enact and enforce. [2][3]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in Bond v. United States instructed the lower court to consider Tenth Amendment arguments that Congress did not have the authority to establish enforcement of overly broad federal laws such as the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Justice Kennedy espoused his understanding of federalism when he delivered the opinion of the court. To find out more about Kennedy's understanding of federalism click here. To read about the impact of Bond v. United States click here.
Background
The case concerned plaintiff Carol Anne Bond, who worked for a chemical manufacturer called Rohm and Haas. Bond learned that Myrlinda Haynes had been having an affair with Bond's husband and had conceived a child. Carol Bond stole and purchased chemicals, which she applied to Haynes' doorknobs, car door handles, and mailbox. These chemicals caused Haynes to suffer a minor burn and she contacted a federal investigator who found that Carol Bond was the perpetrator. Carol Bond was charged with several violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998.[1]
Bond argued in district court that Congress did not have the authority to enforce the act because it subverted the Tenth Amendment. The district court denied her motion and she pleaded guilty with the understanding that she could appeal the decision in the future. She was sentenced to six years in prison. She renewed her challenge of the act in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court ruled that she did not have standing to appeal.[1]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on February 22, 2011. The case was decided on June 16, 2011.[2]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 9-0 to remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and did not decide the merits of Bond's claims that the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the unanimous opinion of the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion and was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.[1]
Opinion
Majority opinion
- See also: Standing
Justice Kennedy argued that the lower court erred when it determined that Bond lacked standing. Justice Kennedy also argued that the case upon which the lower court relied Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA did not establish Article III standing limitations.[2]
| “ | To conclude that petitioner lacks standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States, the Court of Appeals relied on a single sentence from this Court’s opinion in Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U. S. 118 (1939) . . . . Tennessee Electric is the appropriate place to begin. It should be clear that Tennessee Electric does not cast doubt on Bond’s standing for purposes of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement. This Court long ago disapproved of the case as authoritative respecting Article III limitations.[4] | ” |
| —Justice Kennedy, majority opinion in Bond v. United States (2011)[2] | ||
Justice Kennedy argued that our constitutional structure entrusts the enforcement of criminal laws to the states. Justice Kennedy argued that if Congress grants enforcement power to the federal government it must clearly indicate that it has given the federal government enforcement power in the law.[2]
| “ | Because our constitutional structure leaves local criminal activity primarily to the States, we have generally declined to read federal law as intruding on that responsibility, unless Congress has clearly indicated that the law should have such reach.[4] | ” |
| —Justice Kennedy, majority opinion in Bond v. United States (2011)[2] | ||
Additionally, Justice Kennedy wrote that the Chemical Weapons Implementation Act was too ambiguous, and Bond's conduct was not covered under the category of chemical weapons:[2]
| “ | There is no opinion of ours . . . which says, or even suggests, that 'dissonance' between ordinary meaning and the unambiguous words of a definition is be resolved in favor of ordinary meaning. If that were the case, there would hardly be any use in providing a definition. No, the true rule is entirely clear: 'When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning.' Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 942 (2000) (emphasis added). Once again, contemplate the judge-empowering consequences of the new interpretive rule the Court today announces: When there is 'dissonance' between the statutory definition and the ordinary meaning of the defined word, the latter may prevail.[4] | ” |
| —Justice Kennedy, majority opinion in Bond v. United States (2011)[2] | ||
The majority ruled that the lower court erred in denying Bond standing:[2]
| “ | There is no basis in precedent or principle to deny petitioner’s standing to raise her claims. The ultimate issue of the statute’s validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed 'necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' the President’s Article II, §2 Treaty Power, see U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 18. This Court expresses no view on the merits of that argument. It can be addressed by the Court of Appeals on remand.
|
” |
| —Justice Kennedy, majority opinion in Bond v. United States (2011)[2] | ||
Federalism
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Separation of powers
In his ruling in Bond v. United States, Justice Kennedy propounded his understanding of the relationship between the federal government and the states. First, he argued that the American Founders believed that a separation of powers between the federal and state governments enhanced freedom and that in doing so they intended to protect the powers of the states and the people:
| “ | The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that 'freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.' Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999). The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived. [4] | ” |
| —Justice Kennedy, majority opinion in Bond v. United States (2011)[2] | ||
In his opinion, Justice Kennedy emphasized that the principles of federalism and the separation of powers secure liberties to citizens:
| “ | Federalism has more than one dynamic. It is true that the federal structure serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of the States and the National Government vis-À-vis one another. The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States. The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right.
|
” |
| —Justice Kennedy, majority opinion in Bond v. United States (2011)[2] | ||
Concurring opinion
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion and was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Ginsburg argued that Bond had a right not to be convicted under a constitutionally invalid law and that the United States Supreme Court should hear the case on its merits to consider whether the enforcement of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act violated Bond's rights:[2]
| “ | In short, a law 'beyond the power of Congress,' for any reason, is 'no law at all.' Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 341 (1928). The validity of Bond’s conviction depends upon whether the Constitution permits Congress to enact §229. Her claim that it does not must be considered and decided on the merits.[4] | ” |
| —Justice Ginsburg, concurring opinion in Bond v. United States (2011)[2] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
In Bond v. United States the United States Supreme Court remanded Anne Bond's conviction under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
Regarding the decision, Michael O'Hear of Marquette Law School wrote that the United States Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Implementation Act. Furthermore, O'Hear wrote that the precedent may be invoked in the future by defendants prosecuted by federal laws:[5]
| “ | Although few defendants are prosecuted under this statute, the Court’s decision in Bond is noteworthy for its approach to the interpretation of federal criminal statutes. The Court adopted a narrow interpretation of the Implementation Act in order to preserve what it called the 'usual constitutional balance of federal and state power.' This interpretive principle is not a new one, but the Court applied it in an unusually aggressive fashion in Bond. The opinion is sure to be a favorite of defendants who find themselves prosecuted in federal court for offenses traditionally and routinely handled in state courts.[4] | ” |
| —Michael M. O'Hear, Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog (June 3, 2014)[5] | ||
In an article entitled "Tenth Amendment Challenges After Bond v. United States," Scott G. Thompson and Christopher Klimmek examined the cases that used the precedent set in Bond v. United States.[6] The authors wrote that Bond clarified individual liberties protections under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also asserted that cases stemming from Tenth Amendment claims must also satisfy Article III requirements for standing in federal courts:
| “ | Bond clarified that the Tenth Amendment protects individual liberties and thus prudential, third-party standing principles do not prevent individuals from bringing a Tenth Amendment challenge against federal statutes that impair their liberties. But Bond also made clear that individual Tenth Amendment challenges must satisfy traditional Article III standing requirements and that not every violation of the Tenth Amendment automatically entails an impairment of individual liberty that supports standing.[4] | ” |
| —Michael M. O'Hear, Challenges after Bond v. United States[6] | ||
See also
External links
- Oyez, "United Bond v. United States"
- Justia, "Bond v. United States"
- Cornell, "Bond v. United States,"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Oyez, "United Bond v. United States" accessed June 6,2022
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 Justia, "Bond v. United States" accessed June 6,2022
- ↑ Cornell, "Bond v. United States," accessed June 6, 2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Marquette Law Blog, "Bond v. United States," accessed June 8, 2022
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 University of Colorado Law School, "Challenges after Bond v. United States," accessed June 8, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
