Bond v. United States (2014)

Last updated

Bond v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 3, 2013
Decided June 2, 2014
Full case nameCarol Anne Bond, Petitioner v. United States
Docket no. 12-158
Citations572 U.S. 844 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 2077; 189 L. Ed. 2d 1
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior Bond v. United States , 564 U.S. 211 (2011); on remand, 681 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1140(2013).
Holding
A fair reading of statutes must be certain of the intent of Congress before it finds that federal law overrides the usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceScalia (in judgment), joined by Thomas; Alito (Part I)
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment), joined by Scalia; Alito (Parts I, II, and III)
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. X, Chemical Weapons Convention

Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), follows up on the Supreme Court's 2011 case of the same name in which it had reversed the Third Circuit and concluded that both individuals and states can bring a Tenth Amendment challenge to federal law. The case was remanded to the Third Circuit, for a decision on the merits, which again ruled against Bond. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded again, ruling that the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 did not reach Bond's actions and she could not be charged under that federal law. [1]

Contents

Background

Carol Anne Bond is a microbiologist from Lansdale, Pennsylvania. In 2006, her best friend became pregnant. When Bond discovered that her husband was the child's father, she attempted to injure her former friend by putting organoarsenic and potassium dichromate on the woman's door knob. Bond was caught, and was convicted under the CWA. In her appeal, she argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her had violated the Tenth Amendment. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled that Bond lacked standing to make a Tenth Amendment claim. [3] On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed by stating that individuals can bring Tenth Amendment claims. [4] The Court then remanded the case for the Third Circuit to decide the case on the merits.

On remand, the Third Circuit found that "because the Convention is an international agreement with a subject matter that lies at the core of the Treaty Power and because Holland instructs that 'there can be no dispute about the validity of [a] statute' that implements a valid treaty, we will affirm Bond's conviction." [5] Bond again appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the court to overrule Holland or to find that her actions were not covered by the CWA. [6]

The case attracted a great deal of attention, with US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli arguing for the government and former Solicitor General Paul Clement arguing for Bond. Senator Ted Cruz wrote an essay for the blog of the Harvard Law Review , urging the Court to overturn Bond's conviction. [7]

Decision

Chief Justice Roberts opened his opinion by vividly describing John Singer Sargent's life-sized painting of mustard gas victims. Roberts closed by noting, "There are no life-sized paintings of Bond's rival washing her thumb." Sargent, John Singer (RA) - Gassed - Google Art Project.jpg
Chief Justice Roberts opened his opinion by vividly describing John Singer Sargent's life-sized painting of mustard gas victims. Roberts closed by noting, "There are no life-sized paintings of Bond's rival washing her thumb."

In its judgment, the Court unanimously concluded that the convention was not meant to cover local activities such as Bond's poisoning attempt. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts declined to define the scope of Treaty Clause powers, invoking constitutional avoidance. Because the Chemical Weapons Convention is not self-executing and because it requires implementation by a signatory to be "in accordance with its constitutional processes," Roberts focused his attention on statutory interpretation of the federal criminal code.

According to Roberts, one of the key "background principles of construction" is federalism; there must be a "clear indication" by Congress if it intends to "dramatically intrude upon traditional state criminal jurisdiction." The Court concluded that there was no such clear indication in the text of the criminal statute.

Roberts rejected the Solicitor General's interpretation of the statute, noting that the government's reading would make it a federal offense to poison children's goldfish and that state authorities are fully capable of punishing burrito poisoners. [8]

Finally, Roberts briefly responds to Justice Scalia's interpretation by noting that adopting "the most sweeping reading of the statute would fundamentally upset the Constitution's balance."

A well-known line from his opinion is at the end: "The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon." [9]

Concurrences

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and partly by Justice Alito, concurred only in the judgment. Scalia departed from the majority by first reading the text as clearly federalizing a purely-local crime and Scalia concluding that it is unconstitutional for Congress to federalize a purely-local crime.

Scalia discounted the Court's logic as "result-driven antitextualism [that] befogs what is evident." Constitutional avoidance, according to Scalia, does not require interpreting the statute constitutionally because he reads the text as "utterly clear." Because the "unavoidable meaning of the text" is different from the meaning adopted by the majority, Scalia then proceeded to the constitutional question.

Scalia considered the necessary and proper clause not to apply to implementing treaties. Therefore, a treaty can be implemented only by the other enumerated powers of Congress. That is directly contrary to longstanding precedent, but he argued that he could overrule that precedent because he considered the holding of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in Missouri v. Holland (1920) to be unreasoned.

As a counterfactual, Scalia feared that by using unlimited treaty powers, Congress could enter into an anti-polygamy treaty and thereby ban polygamy.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia and partly by Justice Alito, agreed with Scalia that the convention reached Bond and that Holland should be overruled. Rather than concluding that the implementation of the convention to be unconstitutional, Thomas instead argued that the treaty itself is unconstitutional. Because the scope of the treaty power cannot regulate "purely domestic affairs," Thomas argued that the US could not join a treaty banning domestic chemical weapons. [10]

Seeking the founders' original understanding, Thomas began by reviewing international law publications from the 1600s. [11] While noting that contemporary dictionaries disagreed with him, Thomas concluded that the founders understood treaties as governing only "international intercourse." [12]

He then cited as support the 1796 floor speeches made by in the US Congress against the Jay Treaty. [13]

Furthermore, an 1815 treaty could constitutionally pre-empt a South Carolina law authorizing the local kidnapping of free negroes because, according to Thomas, some of the sailors who were enslaved were British. [14]

Thomas closed by acknowledging that his distinction " may not be obvious in all cases" but noted that although the parties to the case did not argue that chemical weapons bans are unconstitutional, he was sure that he would be able to apply his limits to the treaty power "soon enough."

Justice Alito agrees that the convention covered Bond's actions and that it exceeded the treaty-making power of Congress.

Reactions

The New Republic viewed the concurring justices' approach as an isolationist attempt to pass the failed Bricker Amendment judicially. [15] Cato's Supreme Court Review focused on Scalia's use of Cato's amicus brief. [16] The 43-page "Comment" by Heather K. Gerken on the case declared it "a trivial entry in the federalism canon." [17]

Subsequent Events

In 2014, on remand the U.S. District Court vacated the sentence on the chemical weapons charges and imposed an 18-month sentence on theft of mail charges.

See also

Related Research Articles

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling had the same effect as that of the Eighth Circuit.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct. It ruled that the state has the constitutional authority to ban public nudity, even as part of expressive conduct such as dancing, because it furthers a substantial government interest in protecting the morality and order of society. This case is perhaps best summarized by a sentence in Justice Souter's concurring opinion, which is often paraphrased as "Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct."

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection used for capital punishment.

Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that section 319 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutionally infringed on candidates' rights as provided by First Amendment.

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, just like states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the First Amendment protects the decision of an author to remain anonymous.

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under the terms of this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant. Carrigan challenged his censure in court and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in his favor, claiming that casting his vote was protected speech. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that voting by a public official on a public matter is not First Amendment speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2012 term, which began October 1, 2012 and concluded October 6, 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2013 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.

United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2014 term, which began October 6, 2014 and concluded October 4, 2015.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

References

  1. ↑ "Bond v. United States". Oyez. Archived from the original on April 1, 2016. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
  2. ↑ Adam Liptak (October 18, 2010). "A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV". The New York Times . Retrieved October 18, 2010.
  3. ↑ Adam Liptak (February 22, 2011). "Court Weighs the Power of Congress". The New York Times. Retrieved July 26, 2011.
  4. ↑ Bond v. United States , 564 U.S. 211 (2011).
  5. ↑ United States v. Bond, 681F.3d149 (3d Cir.2012).
  6. ↑ Liptak, Adam (October 18, 2010). "A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV Heads to the Supreme Court". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved September 5, 2021.
  7. ↑ Cruz, Ted. "Limits on the Treaty Power." Harv. L. Rev. F. 127 (2013): 93.
  8. ↑ Bond v. United States, No. 12-158 , 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2092 (2014) (citing Gamiz, Family Survives Poisoned Burritos, Allentown, Pa., Morning Call, May 18, 2013).
  9. ↑ Bond, 134 S. Ct. at 2093.
  10. ↑ Bond, 134 S. Ct. at 2103 (Thomas, J. concurring).
  11. ↑ Bond, 134 S. Ct. at 2104 (citing H. Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (1646), 2 S. Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium 1331 (1688)).
  12. ↑ Bond, 134 S. Ct. at 2104 (citing S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 2056 (rev. 4th ed. 1773)).
  13. ↑ Bond, 134 S. Ct. at 2107 citing 5 Annals of Cong. 426 (1796).
  14. ↑ Bond, 134 S. Ct. at 2108 (citing Elkison v. Deliesseline, 8 F.Cas. 493, 495 (No. 4,366)(C.C.S.C.1823) (Johnson, Circuit Justice)).
  15. ↑ Lazarus, Simon (June 9, 2014). "The Supreme Court Deals Radical Conservatives a Foreign-Policy Setback". The New Republic. Retrieved March 12, 2015.
  16. ↑ Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Bond v. United States: Concurring in the Judgment, 2014 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 285-306 Archived April 2, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  17. ↑ Heather Gerken, Slipping the Bonds of Federalism, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 85 (2014)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.