Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

A 

In  the  Government’s  view,  the  conclusion  that  Bond 
“knowingly”  “use[d]”  a  “chemical  weapon”  in  violation  of
section  229(a)  is  simple:  The  chemicals  that  Bond  placed
on  Haynes’s  home  and  car  are  “toxic  chemical[s]”  as  de-
fined  by  the  statute,  and  Bond’s  attempt  to  assault
Haynes  was  not  a  “peaceful  purpose.”    §§229F(1),  (8),  (7).
The  problem  with  this  interpretation  is  that  it  would 
“dramatically  intrude[ ]  upon  traditional  state  criminal 
jurisdiction,”  and  we  avoid  reading  statutes  to  have  such
reach  in  the  absence  of  a  clear  indication  that  they  do. 
United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 350 (1971). 

Part  of  a  fair  reading  of  statutory  text  is  recognizing
that “Congress legislates against the backdrop” of  certain
unexpressed  presumptions.  EEOC  v.  Arabian  American 
Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 248 (1991).  As Justice Frankfurter 
put  it  in  his  famous  essay  on  statutory  interpretation, 
correctly reading a statute “demands awareness of certain 
presuppositions.”  Some  Reflections  on  the  Reading  of 
Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 537 (1947).  For example,
we  presume  that  a  criminal  statute  derived  from  the
common law carries with it the requirement of a culpable 
mental  state—even  if  no  such  limitation  appears  in  the
text—unless  it  is  clear  that  the  Legislature  intended  to
impose  strict  liability.    United  States  v.  United  States 
Gypsum  Co.,  438  U. S.  422,  437  (1978).    To  take  another 
example,  we  presume,  absent  a  clear  statement  from 
Congress,  that  federal  statutes  do  not  apply  outside  the
United States.  Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 
561  U. S.  247,  255  (2010).    So  even  though  section  229,
read on its face, would cover a chemical weapons crime if 
committed  by  a  U. S.  citizen  in  Australia,  we  would  not 
apply the statute to such conduct absent a plain statement 
from Congress.1  The notion that some things “go without 
—————— 

1 Congress has in fact included just such a plain statement in section