Tuesday, 1 March 2011 Written by David G. Sigale An interesting case was recently heard in the United States Supreme Court, which raises the issue of the limits of federal power, and who is allowed to make the claim that the federal government has allegedly overstepped its bounds into the autonomy of States and its citizens.
In Bond v. United States, the defendant, Carol Anne Bond, was understandably upset when her husband impregnated her best friend. Bond, a laboratory technician, stole one chemical from her workplace, and bought another on amazon.com. Then she put the chemicals on her friend’s doorknob and car. The friend became suspicious and called the police, who did not satisfactorily investigate. When the friend found the chemicals on her mailbox, she called the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Inspectors videorecorded Bond with the chemicals, and arrested. But instead of turning Bond over to the local police, they gave her to the Feds, who prosecuted Bond for using a “chemical weapon” under a federal anti-terrorism statute. Bond eventually pled guilty and received a six-year sentence in a federal prison. Bond appealed her conviction, arguing the Feds lacked the authority to prosecute her in the first place. In legalese, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that all powers not expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the States. Typically this includes local law enforcement. Bond argued that prosecuting her under the anti-terrorism law was an unconstitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment, and that she should have been charged, at most, with battery in state court (the sentence would likely have been much lighter). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia rejected Bond’s appeal, ruling that only the State can argue that the Feds are infringing on its Tenth Amendment powers. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the question of whether a criminal defendant can challenge her federal conviction by arguing the statute under which she was convicted violated the Tenth Amendment. At first blush from the Court transcript, it appears the answer will be “yes.” (You can read the transcript at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-1227.pdf). The Court openly questioned why a criminal defendant should not be able to raise any legal challenge to the law taking away her liberty. Bond’s attorney noted the seeming absurdity that the Feds can prosecute someone for using a “chemical weapon” purchased on amazon.com. One Justice noted that under the statute’s definitions, virtually any substance can be a “chemical weapon.” The Court is expected to rule by June. Of note is that even if the Court rules in Bond’s favor, all she wins is the right to challenge the statute. The lower Courts can then accept or reject that challenge. However, until a Court invalidates the law (either as applied to Bond in this case or as a whole), Bond’s conviction stands. So while this case is an interesting example of the conflict between federal and State/local authorities, and could have far-reaching implications for future prosecutions, for Bond’s sake she hopefully received bail while the case has been on appeal, or her sentence may be completed even before her legal questions are resolved.