Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  572 U. S. ____ (2014) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

that  the  Government  had  explicitly  disavowed  that  argu-
ment before the District Court.  681 F. 3d, at 151, n. 1.  As 
a result, in this Court the parties have devoted significant
effort to arguing whether section 229, as applied to Bond’s
offense, is a necessary and proper means of executing the 
National  Government’s  power  to  make  treaties.    U. S. 
Const.,  Art. II,  §2,  cl.  2.    Bond  argues  that  the  lower 
court’s  reading  of  Missouri  v.  Holland  would  remove  all 
limits  on  federal  authority,  so  long  as  the  Federal  Gov-
ernment  ratifies  a  treaty  first.   She  insists  that  to  effec-
tively  afford  the  Government  a  police  power  whenever  it
implements  a  treaty  would  be  contrary  to  the  Framers’ 
careful  decision  to  divide  power  between  the  States  and 
the National Government as a means of preserving liberty.
To the extent that  Holland authorizes such usurpation of 
traditional  state  authority,  Bond  says,  it  must  be  either 
limited or overruled. 

The Government replies that this Court has never held 
that  a  statute  implementing  a  valid  treaty  exceeds  Con-
gress’s  enumerated  powers.  To  do  so  here,  the  Govern-
ment  says,  would  contravene  another  deliberate  choice  of 
the  Framers:  to  avoid  placing  subject  matter  limitations
on  the  National  Government’s  power  to  make  treaties. 
And  it  might  also  undermine  confidence  in  the  United
States as an international treaty partner.

Notwithstanding  this  debate,  it  is  “a  well-established 
principle  governing  the  prudent  exercise  of  this  Court’s
jurisdiction  that  normally  the  Court  will  not  decide  a 
constitutional question if there is some other ground upon 
which  to  dispose  of  the  case.”  Escambia  County  v.  Mc-
Millan,  466  U. S.  48,  51  (1984)  (per  curiam);  see  also 
Ashwander  v.  TVA,  297  U. S.  288,  347  (1936)  (Brandeis, 
J.,  concurring).  Bond  argues  that  section  229  does  not 
cover her conduct.  So we consider that argument first.