Bond v. United States
180 L. Ed. 2d 269, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4558, 564 US 211 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual criminal defendant has standing to challenge a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeds Congress's enumerated powers and intrudes on powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, because the principles of federalism protect individual liberty, not just the rights of states.
Facts:
- Carol Anne Bond discovered that her close friend was pregnant and that Bond's husband was the father.
- Seeking revenge, Bond began a campaign of harassment against the friend.
- Bond placed caustic chemical substances on objects the friend was likely to touch, including her car door handle, mailbox, and doorknob.
- The friend suffered a minor chemical burn on her hand as a result of touching one of the substances.
- After the harassment continued, the friend contacted federal investigators, who identified Bond as the perpetrator.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Carol Anne Bond in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for violating the federal chemical weapons statute, 18 U.S.C. § 229.
- Bond filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing the statute was an unconstitutional exercise of federal power.
- The District Court, a federal trial court, denied Bond's motion.
- Bond entered a conditional guilty plea, which reserved her right to appeal the court's constitutional ruling.
- Bond (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the United States was the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals held that Bond lacked standing to raise a Tenth Amendment challenge to the federal statute and affirmed her conviction.
- Bond petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private individual prosecuted under a federal criminal statute have standing to argue that the statute is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress's powers and interferes with powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. An individual defendant has standing to challenge a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeds Congress's authority and infringes on powers reserved to the states. Federalism is not merely an arrangement between governments; it is a structural protection for individual liberty. By diffusing sovereign power between the national government and the states, federalism protects individuals from arbitrary government action. Therefore, when the national government acts in excess of its delegated powers, it threatens individual liberty, giving an injured person a direct interest in challenging that action. This is analogous to how individuals, not just branches of government, have standing to raise separation-of-powers claims because those structural principles also protect individual rights. The Court found that the lower court's reliance on Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA was misplaced, as that case is no longer controlling on the modern understanding of standing.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. An individual has standing for a more direct reason: any defendant has a fundamental, personal right not to be convicted under a constitutionally invalid law. If a law is unconstitutional for any reason—whether because it exceeds enumerated powers, violates the Tenth Amendment, or infringes upon another constitutional provision—it is effectively 'no law at all.' A court therefore has no 'prudential' authority to refuse to hear a defendant's claim that the statute under which they are being prosecuted is unconstitutional, as a conviction under such a law would be illegal and void.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that federalism is not just a structural principle governing the relationship between states and the federal government, but also a source of individual rights. It establishes that individuals who suffer a concrete injury, such as a criminal prosecution, have standing to vindicate their own liberty interests by challenging federal laws that upset the federal-state balance. This empowers individual litigants to act as guardians of the constitutional structure, expanding the avenues for challenging federal overreach beyond suits brought by states themselves. The ruling ensures that federalism claims can be raised as a defense in ordinary criminal proceedings, potentially impacting the scope and enforcement of a wide range of federal statutes.
Unlock the full brief for Bond v. United States