Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

BOND v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

saying”  applies  to  legislation  just  as  it  does  to  everyday 
life. 

Among  the  background  principles  of  construction  that
our cases have recognized are those grounded in the rela-
tionship between the Federal Government and the States
under  our  Constitution.    It  has  long  been  settled,  for  ex-
ample,  that  we  presume  federal  statutes  do  not  abrogate
state  sovereign  immunity,  Atascadero  State  Hospital  v. 
Scanlon,  473  U. S.  234,  243  (1985),  impose  obligations  on 
the  States  pursuant  to  section  5  of  the  Fourteenth
Amendment,  Pennhurst  State  School  and  Hospital  v. 
Halderman,  451  U. S.  1,  16–17  (1981),  or  preempt  state 
law,  Rice  v.  Santa  Fe  Elevator  Corp.,  331  U. S.  218,  230 
(1947).

Closely related to these is the well-established principle
that “ ‘it is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain
of  Congress’  intent  before  finding  that  federal  law  over-
rides’ ”  the  “usual  constitutional  balance  of  federal  and 
state  powers.”    Gregory  v.  Ashcroft,  501  U. S.  452,  460 
(1991)  (quoting  Atascadero,  supra,  at  243).
  To  quote
Frankfurter  again,  if  the  Federal  Government  would 
“ ‘radically  readjust[ ]  the  balance  of  state  and  national
authority, those charged with the duty of legislating [must
be] reasonably explicit’ ” about it.  BFP v. Resolution Trust 
Corporation,  511  U. S.  531,  544  (1994)  (quoting  Some 
Reflections,  supra,  at  539–540;  second  alteration  in  origi-
nal).  Or  as  explained  by  Justice  Marshall,  when  legisla-
tion “affect[s] the federal balance, the requirement of clear 
statement  assures  that  the  legislature  has  in  fact  faced,
and  intended  to  bring  into  issue,  the  critical  matters  in-
volved in the judicial decision.”  Bass, supra, at 349. 

—————— 

229(c)(2): “Conduct prohibited by [section 229(a)] is within the jurisdic-
tion  of  the  United  States  if  the  prohibited  conduct  . . .  takes  place
outside  of  the  United  States  and  is  committed  by  a  national  of  the
United States.”