Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

weapon  counts  on  the  ground  that  section  229  exceeded 
Congress’s  enumerated  powers  and  invaded  powers  re-
served to the States by the Tenth Amendment.  The District 
Court  denied  Bond’s  motion.    She  then  entered  a  condi-
tional  guilty  plea  that  reserved  her  right  to  appeal.    The 
District  Court  sentenced  Bond  to  six  years  in  federal 
prison  plus  five  years  of  supervised  release,  and  ordered 
her to pay a $2,000 fine and $9,902.79 in restitution. 

Bond  appealed,  raising  a  Tenth  Amendment  challenge
to  her  conviction.    The  Government  contended  that  Bond 
lacked  standing  to  bring  such  a  challenge.    The  Court  of 
Appeals  for  the  Third  Circuit  agreed.    We  granted  certio-
rari,  the  Government  confessed  error,  and  we  reversed. 
We held that, in a proper case, an individual may “assert 
injury  from  governmental  action  taken  in  excess  of  the 
authority that federalism defines.”  Bond v. United States, 
564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (Bond I) (slip op., at 8).  We “ex-
presse[d]  no  view  on  the  merits”  of  Bond’s  constitutional 
challenge.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14). 

to 

the 

that 

“warlike”  activities 

On remand, Bond renewed her constitutional argument.
She  also  argued  that  section  229  does  not  reach  her  con-
duct  because  the  statute’s  exception  for  the  use  of  chemi-
cals  for  “peaceful  purposes”  should  be  understood  in  con-
tradistinction 
the 
Convention  was  primarily  designed  to  prohibit.  Bond 
argued that her conduct, though reprehensible, was not at
all  “warlike.”  The  Court  of  Appeals  rejected  this  argu-
ment.  681 F. 3d 149 (CA3 2012).  The court acknowledged 
that the Government’s reading of section 229 would render 
the  statute  “striking”  in  its  “breadth”  and  turn  every
“kitchen cupboard and cleaning cabinet in America into a
potential chemical weapons cache.”  Id., at 154, n. 7.  But 
the  court  nevertheless  held  that  Bond’s  use  of  “ ‘highly
toxic  chemicals  with  the  intent  of  harming  Haynes’  can 
hardly  be  characterized  as  ‘peaceful’  under  that  word’s
Id.,  at  154  (citation 
commonly  understood  meaning.”