Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 42

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–158 
_________________ 

CAROL ANNE BOND, PETITIONER v. UNITED
 
STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
 

[June 2, 2014]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, and 
with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO  joins  as  to  Parts  I,  II,  and  III,  
concurring in the judgment. 

By its clear terms, the statute at issue in this case regu-
lates  local  criminal  conduct  that  is  subject  to  the  powers
reserved  to  the  States.    See  ante,  at  1–2  (SCALIA,  J.,  con-
curring  in  judgment).
  That  aggrandizement  of  federal
power  cannot  be  justified  as  a  “necessary  and  proper” 
means of implementing a treaty addressing similar subject 
matter.  See  ante,  at  8–9.    To  the  contrary,  reading  the 
Necessary  and  Proper  Clause  to  expand  Congress’  power 
upon  the  ratification  of  every  new  treaty  defies  an  indis-
putable  first  principle  of  our  constitutional  order:  “ ‘[T]he
Constitution  created  a  Federal  Government  of  limited 
powers.’ ”    New  York  v.  United  States,  505  U. S.  144,  155 
(1992)  (quoting  Gregory  v.  Ashcroft,  501  U. S.  452,  457 
(1991)).  I  accordingly  join  JUSTICE  SCALIA’s  opinion  in 
full. 

I  write  separately  to  suggest  that  the  Treaty  Power  is 
itself a limited federal power.  Cf. United States v. Lopez, 
514 U. S. 549, 584 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (“[W]e 
always  have  rejected  readings  of  . . .  the  scope  of  federal 
power  that  would  permit  Congress  to  exercise  a  police 
power”).  The  Constitution  empowers  the  President,  “by
and  with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make