## Facts

- Carol Anne Bond, a microbiologist, attempted to harm a woman who had become pregnant by Bond’s husband by placing toxic chemicals on items the woman was likely to touch.
- The victim sustained only a minor burn.
- Federal prosecutors charged Bond with, among other offenses, two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 229, part of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, which prohibits knowing possession or use of certain toxic chemicals except for peaceful purposes.
- Bond moved to dismiss the § 229 counts, arguing the statute exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers and violated principles of federalism reflected in the Tenth Amendment.
- The district court denied the motion; Bond entered a conditional guilty plea preserving her right to appeal the statute’s validity.
- The Third Circuit held Bond lacked standing to raise a Tenth Amendment challenge, reasoning that only states may assert such claims.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the standing question.

## Issues

1. Whether an individual criminal defendant has standing to challenge a federal statute as exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers and intruding on powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Third Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that Bond had standing to assert that the federal statute interfered with powers reserved to the states.
- The Court declined to address the merits of whether § 229 was within Congress’s constitutional authority.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal defendant prosecuted under a federal statute satisfies Article III standing when facing concrete injury from conviction and loss of liberty.
- Federalism-based structural limits on federal power protect individual liberty as well as state sovereignty; individuals are not limited to “bystander” status in enforcing those limits.
- The Tenth Amendment does not bar private parties from arguing that a federal law exceeds delegated federal power when the law is applied to them.
- A court may recognize standing to raise a constitutional claim without deciding the claim’s merits.

## Conclusion

The Court held that individuals prosecuted under federal law may assert Tenth Amendment and federalism-based limits on Congress’s power as a personal defense, and it remanded for consideration of the statute’s validity without reaching the merits.


Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011)