U.S. Supreme Court 06-16-11
by: Grapkoch • June 15, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Using the 10th Amendment as a Defense to Federal Crimes
Constitutional nerds should love this opinion. Bond asked whether a criminal defendant convicted under a federal statute has standing to challenge her conviction on grounds that, as applied to her, the statute is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment. AWESOME. And, even more awesomely, the Court gives a unanimous yes.
While most of its decision is devoted to gutting Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118 (1939), the Court also explicitly addresses, and rejects, the argument that Tenth Amendment rights are only enforceable by the states themselves:
In amicus' view, to argue that the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert the legal rights and interests of States and States alone. That, however, is not so. As explained below, Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State.
Contrary to amicus' position, Justice Kennedy chastises, there are robust reasons for guaranteeing Bond the opportunity to personally challenge the legitimacy of federal laws under the auspices of federalism:
Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity .Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions .The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism.
Importantly, this individual right extends beyond the authority to argue that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers. Criminal defendants also have the right to challenge a Congressional act on the ground that it "interferes with a specific aspect of state sovereignty." This is so because "[t]here is no basis to support the Government's proposed distinction between different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential standing rules. The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment, both are expressed by it."
A concurring opinion by Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Breyer) follows the majority. More information on Bond v. United States can be found at the SCOTUSblog case page, available here.
