Source: https://angrybearblog.com/tag/petrella-v-metro-goldwyn-mayer
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:00:51+00:00

Document:
AWESOME opinion today by Roberts in Bond v. United States!
I’ve written extensively here at AB about a two-time Supreme Court case called Bond v. United States, first three years ago when the case was heard the first time, then in the last few months as the case was heard there again. My most recent post on it, from May 15, was called “The Supreme Court’s opinion in Bond v. U.S. will be about separation of powers. But about separation of WHICH powers?” I updated that post on May 17 to include an exchange between reader Mike Hansberry and me in the Comments thread to the post.
Here’s Lyle again. The third and final opinion is Bond v. US. The decision holds that Section 229 does not reach Bond’s simple assault. It is by the Chief Justice.
The decision of the Third Circuit is reversed. There are no dissents; there are multiple opinions, however. Scalia has concurred in the judgment, joined by Thomas and in part by Alito. Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Scalia joined and Alito joined in part. Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
The Court seems to avoid a major ruling on the Treaty power by limiting the federal criminal statute under which the defendant was charged.
The opinion makes clear that the Court does not interpret the scope of the international weapons treaty at issue. The state laws are sufficient to prosecute an assault like the one in this case. There is no indication in the federal law that Congress intended to abandon its traditional reluctance to define as a federal crime conduct controlled as criminal by the states.
The separate opinions by the other conservatives likely argue that the Treaty Power should be limited. But the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy do not join them.
Here is the opinion in Bond.
The surprise basis for the ruling–an actual honest consideration of what Congress’s purpose was, and the breadth Congress actually intended, in enacting the statute at issue–is similar to a ruling on May 19, in an opinion by Ginsburg, concerning a procedural statute. This is a very good, new development for the current Court (although the three dissenters in that case, a Copyright Act case, called Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, were Roberts, Kennedy and Breyer).
The questions at issue in the Alabama redistricting cases involve packing black voters into districts to concentrate their voting strength. In 13-1138, there is a subpart in the question that the Court agreed to hear about whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims of racial gerrymandering.
Here’s Lyle [Denniston, at the Court]. We have one grant (technically noting of probable jurisdiction), in the two Alabama redistricting cases, Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama (is limited to question one), Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (question two only).
I probably will write a detailed post on Bond, hopefully tomorrow. I don’t think I’ll have time today.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.