Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2013 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BOND v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 12–158.  Argued November 5, 2013—Decided June 2, 2014 

To  implement  the  international  Convention  on  the  Prohibition  of  the
Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons
and  on  Their  Destruction,  Congress  enacted  the  Chemical  Weapons 
Convention Implementation Act of 1998.  The statute forbids, among
other  things,  any  person  knowingly  to  “possess[ ]  or  use  . . .  any 
chemical weapon,” 18 U. S. C. §229(a)(1).  A “chemical weapon” is “[a]
toxic  chemical  and  its  precursors,  except  where  intended  for  a  pur-
pose not prohibited under this chapter.”  §229F(1)(A).  A “toxic chem-
ical”  is  “any  chemical  which  through  its  chemical  action  on  life  pro-
cesses can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm
to humans or animals.  The term includes all such chemicals, regard-
less of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of
whether  they  are  produced  in  facilities,  in  munitions  or  elsewhere.”
§229F(8)(A).  “[P]urposes not prohibited by this chapter” is defined as
“[a]ny  peaceful  purpose  related  to  an  industrial,  agricultural,  re-
search,  medical,  or  pharmaceutical  activity  or  other  activity,”  and
other specific purposes.  §229F(7).

Petitioner  Bond  sought  revenge  against  Myrlinda  Haynes—with
whom her husband had carried on an affair—by spreading two toxic 
chemicals  on  Haynes’s  car,  mailbox,  and  door  knob  in  hopes  that 
Haynes  would  develop  an  uncomfortable  rash.    On  one  occasion 
Haynes  suffered  a  minor  chemical  burn  that  she  treated  by  rinsing
with  water,  but  Bond’s  attempted  assaults  were  otherwise  entirely
unsuccessful.    Federal  prosecutors  charged  Bond  with  violating,
among other things, section 229(a).  Bond moved to dismiss the chem-
ical  weapons  charges  on  the  ground  that  the  Act  violates  the  Tenth
Amendment.  When the District Court denied her motion, she plead-
ed guilty but reserved the right to appeal.  The Third Circuit initially