Bond v. United States

2011-06-16

Headline: Court allows a person charged under a federal criminal law to challenge that law as exceeding Congress’s power, reversing the appeals court and sending the question of the law’s validity back for review.

Holding: The Court held that an individual indicted under a federal criminal statute has standing to challenge that statute as exceeding Congress’s powers under the Tenth Amendment, reversed the appeals court, and remanded for merits review.

Real World Impact:

Allows criminal defendants to challenge federal laws as exceeding Congress’s powers.
Sends cases back to appeals courts to decide the statute’s validity on the merits.
Permits federalism objections without a State’s participation when a defendant is injured.

Topics: federalism, criminal charges, constitutional challenge, Tenth Amendment

Summary

Background

Carol Anne Bond, a Pennsylvania resident, was charged in federal court after placing caustic substances on a friend’s belongings and causing a minor burn. She was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §229, a criminal statute enacted to implement a treaty banning chemical weapons. Bond argued the law exceeded Congress’s powers and intruded on state authority; a federal appeals court held she lacked prudential standing to make that Tenth Amendment challenge. The Government later changed its view and the Supreme Court took the case.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether an individual defendant has the right to challenge a federal law on the ground that it intrudes on state powers. It explained that basic Article III requirements for a case were met here and that an older sentence in Tennessee Electric should not be read to bar such challenges now. The Court said individuals can raise federalism-based objections when enforcement of a federal law causes a concrete, personal injury. The opinion clarified that the question of whether §229 is a valid exercise of congressional power is separate from the standing issue and should be decided by the Court of Appeals on remand.

Real world impact

The decision means people prosecuted under federal statutes can ask courts to decide whether the law exceeds federal power, even if a State does not appear in the case. The Supreme Court did not decide whether §229 is unconstitutional; it only allowed the defendant’s challenge to proceed for consideration on the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Breyer) emphasized that defendants have a personal right not to be convicted under an unconstitutional law and urged that such claims must be decided on the merits when properly raised.