United States v. Bond, 681 F.3d 149

Bond was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 229 implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention; on remand, the Supreme Court held she had standing to challenge the statute under the Tenth Amendment; the Third Circuit previously held she lacked standing and upheld the statute's vagueness and breadth; Bond attacked the Act as applied, claiming it infringed state sovereignty and exceeded the Treaty Power's limits; the Convention is international in character, relating to chemical weapons use, proliferation, and compliance with treaty obligations; Bond's conduct involved obtaining and deploying highly toxic chemicals to harm a rival in a domestic dispute, which the Act criminalizes; Holland holds that a valid treaty supports a valid implementing statute, and the court must assess whether the Act bears a rational relationship to the Convention; the panel concludes the Convention is valid and the Act is a proper means to execute the Treaty Power; the court affirms Bond’s conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bond has standing to challenge the Act under the Tenth Amendment	Bond contends the Act intrudes on state sovereignty	Government argues standing is appropriate for treaty-implementing challenges	Bond has standing and may challenge the statute
Whether the Act is a valid exercise of the Treaty Power and Necessary and Proper	Bond argues the Act may exceed the Convention's scope	Government asserts rational relation to implementing the Convention	Yes; the Act is a valid Necessary and Proper enactment implementing a valid treaty
Whether Holland forecloses federalism-based challenges to treaty-implementing statutes	Bond urges federalism limits on the Treaty Power	Holland controls and bars such limits when treaty is valid	Holland controls; no federalism bar to this application
Whether the Convention is within the Treaty Power's scope given its subject matter	Bond concedes treaty power but questions scope	Convention relates to war, peace and international commerce and is within core Treaty Power	Convention falls within the Treaty Power; Act bears rational relation to it
Whether the Act's breadth unnecessarily criminalizes local conduct	Bond argues the Act criminalizes ordinary domestic disputes	Act closely tracks Convention language and is a permissible implementation	The Act is a permissible implementation despite breadth; Bond's claim fails

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) (valid treaty implementatio n supported by necessary and proper means)
United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (Necessary and Proper power to implement treaty-related legislation permissible)
United States v. Lue, 134 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (treaty-implementing legislation bears rational relation to the Convention)
United States v. Ferreira, 275 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2001) (treaty-implementing legislation must be rationally related to the treaty)
United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010) (court affirmed provision tracking treaty language not unconstitutional)