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. In its judgment, the Court unanimously concluded that the convention was not meant to cover local activities such as Bond's poisoning attempt. [3] The Court then remanded the case for the Third Circuit to decide the case on the merits. Bond's argument rests on the claim that the statute exceeded the federal government's enumerated powers in criminalizing her behavior and violated the Constitution, while the government contends legislation implementing treaty obligations is well within its purview. 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. To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately, Ct. Rev. Constitutional avoidance, according to Scalia, does not require interpreting the statute constitutionally because he reads the text as "utterly clear." > After the husband of Carol A. She considers herself as a devout Catholic. As a counterfactual, Scalia feared that by using unlimited treaty powers, Congress could enter into an anti-polygamy treaty and thereby ban polygamy. L. Rev. Carol Anne Bond is a microbiologist from Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Bond attempted to retaliate against her best friend by attacking her with chemical agents. The Supreme Court concluded unanimously that Bond had standing to argue that a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention in that instance intruded on areas of police power reserved to the states. [14] The 43-page "Comment" by Heather K. Gerken on the case declared it "a trivial entry in the federalism canon."[15]. 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. Bond was charged and tried in district court under a federal criminal statute passed as part of implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). 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. My Account | The New Republic viewed the concurring justices approach as an isolationist attempt to pass the failed Bricker Amendment judicially. Muldoon, A., Kornblet, S., Katz, R. (2011). [12], 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.". > In 2006, her best friend became pregnant. NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window. [7][8], "Woman Not Guilty of Chemical Warfare; Constitution Saved", "A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV", "A Significant Term, With Bigger Cases Ahead", "U.S. v. Bond: Reexamining the Mysterious 10th Amendment", https://web.archive.org/web/20140801104500/http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2007/sep/bondrelease.pdf, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bond_v._United_States_(2011)&oldid=972446554, United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court, Short description with empty Wikidata description, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 12 August 2020, at 03:42. Bond was caught, and was convicted under the CWA. The defendant argued, in part, that the application of the law violated the Constitution's federalism limitations on the statutory implementation of treaties by Congress. Therefore, a treaty can be implemented only by the other enumerated powers of Congress. "[4] 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. "A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV". Scalia considered the necessary and proper clause not to apply to implementing treaties. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded again, ruling that the Chemical Warfare Act (CWA) did not reach Bond's actions and she could not be charged under that federal law. Rather than concluding that the implementation of the convention to be unconstitutional, Thomas instead argued that the treaty itself is unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and partly by Justice Alito, concurred only in the judgment. This question remains unanswered because there is dispute among the lower courts as to whether Ms. Gamiz, Family Survives Poisoned Burritos, Allentown, Pa., Morning Call, May 18, 2013, "The Supreme Court Deals Radical Conservatives a Foreign-Policy Setback", Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Bond v. United States: Concurring in the Judgment, 2014 Cato Sup. The case was remanded to the Third Circuit, for a decision on the merits, which again ruled against Bond. Carol Anne Bond v the United States of America: How a Woman Scorned Threatened the Chemical Weapons Convention. F. 127 (2013): 93. Justice Kennedy reasoned that actions exceeding the federal government's enumerated powers undermine the sovereign interests of the states. Harv. What has emerged is a much greater issue--a test of standing on whether a private citizen can challenge the Tenth Amendment. "Limits on the Treaty Power." Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts declined to define the scope of Treaty Clause powers, invoking constitutional avoidance. Bond, as a citizen, even has the right to challenge an amendment guaranteeing states rights when a state is not a party to the action. Instead of being prosecuted in state court for assault, Ms. Accessibility Statement, Health Policy and Management Faculty Publications, http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/bsp.2011.0015, GW Milken Institute School of Public Health. Bond smeared the chemicals on doorknobs, car doors, and the mailbox. In her appeal, she argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her had violated the Tenth Amendment. Sarah Kornblet, Stimson Center, Washington, DC you may Download the file to your hard drive. > Bond smeared the chemicals on doorknobs, car doors, and the mailbox. Carol Bond stole the poisonous chemical: 10-chlorophenox arsine from her employer (Rohm and Haas) and purchased potassium dichromate from the internet. Carol Bond stole the poisonous chemical: 10-chlorophenox arsine from her employer (Rohm and Haas) and purchased potassium dichromate from the internet. This is a copy of an article published in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism © 2011 copyright Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.; Biosecurity and Bioterrorism is available online at: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/bsp.2011.0015. View the profiles of people named Carol Anne Bond. [13] Cato's Supreme Court Review focused on Scalia's use of Cato's amicus brief. Scalia discounted the Court's logic as "result-driven antitextualism [that] befogs what is evident." Her faith is very important to her self-identity and she routinely attends church. Home | Join Facebook to connect with Carol Anne Bond and others you may know. Her appeal argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment. 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. Faculty Publications Senator Ted Cruz wrote an essay for the blog of the Harvard Law Review, urging the Court to overturn Bond's conviction.[5]. Haynes suffered a chemical burn on her thumb. > Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, 9(3), 207-211. [1] The Court of Appeals ruled that Bond lacked standing to make a Tenth Amendment claim. The case of Carol Anne Bond v the United States of America stemmed from a domestic dispute when Ms. [11], 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. 85 (2014), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bond_v._United_States_(2014)&oldid=972446603, United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court, Short description with empty Wikidata description, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Carol Anne Bond is a microbiologist from Lansdale, Pennsylvania. 285-306, Heather Gerken, Slipping the Bonds of Federalism, 128 Harv. However, the circuit court found the 1920 Supreme Court precedent Missouri v. Holland made the legislation indisputably valid since the treaty is valid. 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. 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." 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. Carol Anne Bond is proud to be a religious individual. 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. ", 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."[7]. L. Rev. Should the court decide Ms. What has emerged is a much greater issue--a test of standing on whether … [5], 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. Justice Alito agrees that the convention covered Bond's actions and that it exceeded treaty-making power of Congress. When she learned that her friend Myrlinda Haynes was pregnant and that Bond's husband was the father, she used her connections with the chemical company to obtain the means for revenge. 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.

Preeclampsia With Severe Features Symptoms, The The - Soul Mining Youtube, London City Island Defoe House, Rooster Teeth Twitch, Twisted Lyrics Nightcore, Gaming Motherboard Cpu Combo, Where To Watch Underworld: Endless War, Adjectives That Start With R,