Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

BOND v. UNITED STATES

Docket No.: 09-1227
Certiorari Granted: 10/12/10
Argued: February 22, 2011
Decided: 06/16/11

Topics:

10th Amendment, Administrative Procedure, Article I, Commerce Clause, Due Process, EPA, Establishment Clause, Federalism, Fifth Amendment, Necessary and Proper, SORNA, Tenth Amendment, Treaty Clause, habeas, preemption, separation of powers, stare decisis, statutory standing

PartyNames: Carol Anne Bond v. United States
Petitioner: Carol Anne Bond
Respondent: United States

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Citation: 581 F.3d 128

Carol Anne Bond
v.
United States
Background:

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. ยง 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.

Question Presented:

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.

Question:

Does a criminal defendant, who has been convicted under a federal statute, have standing to challenge the conviction on grounds that the statute is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment?

BOND v. UNITED STATES
ORAL ARGUMENT

02/22/11

Listen to Oral Argument in BOND v. UNITED STATES
Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Bond, 0 vote(s) against
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)