| Bond v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 2011 Decided June 16, 2011 | |
| Full case name | Carol Anne Bond, Petitioner v. United States |
| Docket no. | 09-1227 |
| Citations | 564 U.S. 211 (more) 131 S. Ct. 2355; 180 L. Ed. 2d 269; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4558 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, 2:07-cr-00528-001 (E.D. Pa.); affirmed, 581 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 562 U.S. 960 (2010). |
| Subsequent | On remand, 681 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1140 (2013); reversed, 572 U.S. 844 (2014). |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. X | |
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, just like states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law.
The issue arose in the prosecution of an individual under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act for a local assault that used a chemical irritant. The defendant argued, in part, that the application of the law violated the Constitution's federalism limitations on the statutory implementation of treaties by Congress.
Having decided the defendant could bring the constitutional challenge, the Court remanded the case without deciding the merits of the claims.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/3Views:162 2694 8541 372
-
Treasury bond prices and yields | Stocks and bonds | Finance & Capital Markets | Khan Academy
-
Will the Municipal Bond Market Crash in 2011?
-
Supreme Court Review 2014
Transcription
When you buy a US Treasury security, you're essentially giving a loan to the US federal government. And just as an example here, I have a US Treasury security, in which it says that the owner of this piece of paper will be paid $1,000 in one year. So if you buy this from the Treasury-- or maybe you're buying it from someone else, but let's just say that the government is issuing them right now-- let's say you buy it for $950, and the government will give you this security right over here. Now fast forward one year. You're holding this security, and what happens? So you know, all that stuff is written there. What happens a year later? Well, written on the security-- and I've simplified it just for this example-- it says the holder of the security will get $1,000. So at this point, the US government has to give you $1,000. So when you look at just the money flows, it's pretty clear that you just lent them money. You gave them $950 now, and then a year later they give you $1,000. And if you wanted to put this in terms that you normally associate with borrowing money, in terms of how much interest did you get? Well, you lent $950, and you got back $1,000. So let's think about this way. Let's get a calculator out. So 1,000 divided by 950 is equal to 1.05-- and just to round it-- 1.053. So you got 1.053-- or 105.3%-- of your money back. So let me put it this way. So this is 105.3% of money lent, of money given, of money given to the government. Or another way to think about it is, you got a 5.3% interest-- or you lent your money out at an annual interest of 5.3%. You got your money back, plus you've got 5.3% after one year. So you could imagine, if all of a sudden many people want to buy this government security, and now the price goes up. Instead of being $950, let's imagine that it is now $980. What is the implicit yield that the person would now get on it? Well, we get the calculator back out here. So you're going to get $1,000, and if you paid in $980 instead of $950, then a year later when you get the $1,000 back, that will only be 102% of your money. So in that situation it would be 102% of your money. So with the $950 price, you're essentially lending the government money at 5.3%, and at $980 you're lending the government money at 2%. And I'm doing this to show you a point. When the price of the treasury security goes up, as happened in this case, the yield-- the interest-- that you're getting on your loan goes down. Because in either situation you're going to just get $1,000 back. If you lend $980 and get $1,000 back, you're only getting 2% on your money. If you lend $950 and get $1,000 back, you get 5.3%. And so this is what people are talking about when they say if treasury prices go up then the yield goes down. So if there's more demand for treasuries the interest rate on treasuries will go down. In the next video we'll talk about how this might change for treasuries of different maturity dates.
Background
After the husband of Carol A. Bond of Lansdale, Pennsylvania, impregnated Myrlinda Haynes, Bond told Haynes, "I am going to make your life a living hell." Carol Bond stole the poisonous chemical: 10-chlorophenox arsine from her employer (Rohm and Haas) and purchased potassium dichromate from the internet. Bond smeared the chemicals on doorknobs, car doors, and the mailbox. Haynes suffered a chemical burn on her thumb.[1][2] Bond was indicted for stealing mail and for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998.
Her appeal argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment.[3] The Court of Appeals found Bond lacked standing to make a Tenth Amendment claim.[4]
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded unanimously that Bond had standing to argue that a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention in that instance intruded on areas of police power reserved to the states. Justice Kennedy reasoned that actions exceeding the federal government's enumerated powers undermine the sovereign interests of the states. Individuals seeking to challenge such actions are subject to Article III and prudential standing rules, but if the litigant is a party to an otherwise-justiciable case or controversy, the litigant is not forbidden to object that the injury results from disregard of the federal structure of American government.
The Court expressed no view on the merits of Bond's challenge to the federal statute and remanded the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.[5]
Subsequent history
The Third Circuit, on remand, found that the Supreme Court's decision gave Bond standing to raise federalism questions about the federal government's power to enforce legislation that implements a treaty. However, the circuit court found the 1920 Supreme Court precedent Missouri v. Holland made the legislation indisputably valid since the treaty is valid.[6]
The case then returned to the Supreme Court in Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), in which it ruled that since the Implementation Act did not reach her conduct, the Court declined to address the constitutional issue.[7][8]
See also
- Reid v. Covert, a 1957 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an executive agreement cannot override the Constitutional right to trial by jury.
References
- ^ Epps, Garrett (June 2, 2014). "Woman Not Guilty of Chemical Warfare; Constitution Saved". The Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved May 24, 2015.
- ^ Lithwick, Dahlia (February 22, 2011). "The Case of the Poisoned Lover". Slate. Retrieved May 24, 2015.
- ^ Adam Liptak (October 18, 2010). "A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV". The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2010.
- ^ Adam Liptak (February 22, 2011). "Court Weighs the Power of Congress". The New York Times. Retrieved July 26, 2011.
- ^ Adam Liptak (June 28, 2011). "A Significant Term, With Bigger Cases Ahead". The New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2011.
- ^ United States v. Bond, 681 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 2012).
- ^ Bond v. United States, No. 12-158, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)
- ^ "Bond v. United States". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 3, 2014.
External links
- Text of Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Question Presented
- Epps, Garrett (February 18, 2011). "U.S. v. Bond: Reexamining the Mysterious 10th Amendment". The Atlantic.
- "The Supremes Take On the Toxic Avenger". Newsweek. October 4, 2013. Retrieved June 3, 2014.
- https://web.archive.org/web/20140801104500/http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2007/sep/bondrelease.pdf
This page was last edited on 13 December 2023, at 23:41