On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bond v. United States,1 a case addressing a fundamental question of federalism: When it comes to federal prosecutions, when does the government go too far?
The case arose inauspiciously in a small town in Pennsylvania and followed a winding road over seven years to the Supreme Court—twice. The case’s mundane origin—at the epicenter of a love triangle dominated by a betrayed wife—belied its significance. Carol Anne Bond caused a minor injury to Myrlinda Haynes—formerly her best friend and subsequently Bond’s husband’s pregnant lover—with a compound of toxic chemicals. Federal prosecutors charged her with a federal crime based on the Convention on Chemical Weapons, which bans the use and proliferation of chemical weapons. The court in Bond found that in making this ill-advised charging decision, federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania violated the constitutional boundary separating state and federal police powers. The question now is to what extent Bond will form the basis for future challenges of federal charges involving crimes traditionally left to the states.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
