Bond v. United States
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 5, 2013
|Jun 2, 2014||9-0||Roberts||OT 2013|
Holding: Section 229 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, which criminalizes, among other things, the possession or use of “chemical weapons," does not reach Bond’s conviction for simple assault, arising from her efforts to poison her husband’s mistress by spreading chemicals on (among other things) her doorknob, causing only a minor burn that was easily treated with water.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 2, 2014. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, in which Justice Thomas joined, and Justice Alito joined as to Part I. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Scalia joined, and which Justice Alito joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgement.
- A narrow reading of chemical weapons ban for Bond: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
- A “view” from the Court: Bad news for the Federal Circuit, good news for Bond (Mark Walsh)
- Opinion analysis: World law and "romantic jealousy" (Lyle Denniston)
- Little drama, more skepticism in treaty power case: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
- Argument recap: A tense hour at the Court (Lyle Denniston)
- Treaty power before the Court: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
- Argument preview: New look at old precedent (Lyle Denniston)
- Academic highlight: Questioning Congress's legislative authority to implement treaties (Amanda Frost)
- Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)