Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355

Bond was indicted in the ED Pa. for violating 18 U.S.C. § 229, enacted under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act to implement a treaty.
Bond challenged §229 as beyond Congress’s constitutional authority, appealing on Tenth Amendment/federalism grounds.
The Third Circuit held Bond lacked standing to raise the Tenth Amendment challenge.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether an individual defendant may raise federalism-based challenges.
The Court reverses the Third Circuit on standing, but does not decide the merits of the treaty-power question.
The case is remanded for the Court of Appeals to address the merits of Bond’s Tenth Amendment claim in light of this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bond has standing to challenge §229 on Tenth Amendment grounds	Bond asserts interference with state sovereignty	Government contends no standing or the claim is not properly framed	Bond has standing to raise the Tenth Amendment challenge
Whether Tennessee Electric determines prudential standing in this context	N/A (Bond relies on standing principles)	Tennessee Electric should foreclose this standing	Tennessee Electric does not control modern standing; standing here is allowed
Whether individuals may vindicate federalism principles independently of state interests	Individuals have a direct interest when federal action injures them	Standing should be restricted to state-interest contexts	Individuals may raise federalism-based challenges when injury is concrete and redressable
Whether the government’s narrow view of standing distorts federalism analysis	Interference with state sovereignty is a proper basis for standing	Distinguish between enumerated powers and sovereignty interests	No basis to deny standing on prudential grounds; federalism supports standing in proper cases
Whether the merits of §229’s validity should be addressed on remand	Merits depend on treaty-power interpretation	Merits should be addressed later	Merits reserved for Court of Appeals on remand

Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118 (1939) (standing and cause of action in context of TVA preemption)
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970) (standing and the separation of powers principles)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ( Article III standing requirements)
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (separation of powers protecting individuals)
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (injured parties may challenge presidential actions)
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (Congress members’ standing limitations noted)
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880) (invalid law cannot justify imprisonment)
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (state sovereignty and federalism principles)