Summary of Bond v. United States
Citation: 564 U.S. ______, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011)

Relevant Facts: Carol Bond, angered that her husband had carried on an extramarital affair and fathered a child, threatened and harassed her husband’s lover. She then put “caustic substances” on items that the woman was likely to touch, causing her to suffer minor burns. Bond was indicted by the United States under the federal act implementing ratification of the chemical weapons treaty. Bond was specifically charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §229, which made it a crime to possess or use a chemical that could cause death, incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans. Bond objected to her indictment on the grounds that the law at issue exceeded Congressional authority by usurping the police powers properly reserved to the states. The District Court denied her motion, and Bond entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal and challenge the statute’s constitutionality. On appeal to the Third Circuit, where Bond raised her claim under the Tenth Amendment, the Court of Appeals ruled that she lacked standing to assert a Tenth Amendment Claim. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue: Does an individual have standing to raise a Tenth Amendment claim challenging the validity of a federal criminal law she has been charged with violating?

Holding: Yes, individuals do have standing to challenge the validity of Congressional acts under the Tenth Amendment where all of the other Article III prerequisites are met.

Reasoning: Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. The majority determined that the Third Circuit erred in applying constitutional and prudential standing requirements. That Court, relying on a single sentence from an earlier case, conflated standing with whether the plaintiff had stated a cause of action. As Justice Kennedy explained, arguing that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action goes to the merits of the underlying claim rather than its justiciability. As to whether Bond had standing, the Court explained that the power to assert Congressional violation of the Tenth Amendment does not rest exclusively with the states. Rather, when a plaintiff seeks to invoke her own rights and challenges Congressional authority in her own defense, she has standing to pursue the claim. As the majority explained, federalism protects not only the dual sovereignty of the states, but the rights of individuals too. Just as individuals may pursue proper claims by asserting Congress has exceeded its constitutional authority in other areas, individuals may also assert that Congress has usurped the proper authority of the states. The Court rejected the argument that Bond should only be allowed to argue Congress had exceeded its enumerated powers (barring her Tenth Amendment claim). Here, Justice Kennedy explained that enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment are intertwined, such that a litigant may properly invoke either in arguing that Congress has exceeded its authority. When a plaintiff meets all of the general constitutional and prudential standing requirements, she is not prevented from asserting a Tenth Amendment claim merely because the Tenth Amendment protects the sovereignty of the states. In this case, Bond might not have been prosecuted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at all, and her claim that the federal government usurped a proper state role is justiciable. While the majority reached no conclusion regarding the merits of Bond’s claim, they made clear than individuals may assert Tenth Amendment challenges to Congressional enactments.

Concurrence: Justice Ginsburg concurred, joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Ginsburg pointed out that laws enacted in violation of the Constitution are not really laws at all. Accordingly, defendants convicted under invalid laws may properly assert invalidity as a defense, even where the Constitutional protection at issue is designed to protect another party (in this case, the states). Justice Ginsburg made clear that prudential standing requirements could not bar the claim here, as an invalid law cannot be the basis for a valid conviction under the Constitution. Accordingly, Bond’s arguments should be heard and the Court should reach a determination as to the validity of the statute in question.

Conclusion: Individuals may properly assert a Tenth Amendment defense where their own interests are implicated. When, as here, a defendant is convicted under a law they argue exceeds the authority of Congress to enact, they have standing to challenge the laws validity so long as they meet all other standing requirements.