Supreme Court Considers 10th Amendment, a Tea Party Favorite, in Attempted Poisoning Case
The U.S. Supreme Court weighed the 10th Amendment and standing issues on Tuesday in an appeal by a woman accused of trying to poison a romantic rival.
The justices appeared inclined to rule that Carol Bond of Lansdale, Pa., had standing to pursue the case, according to stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post. “But the court seemed divided,” the Post says, “about whether to go beyond that question and wade into the knotty issues of federal power that her case raises.”
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Philadelphia had dismissed Bond’s appeal, finding that states—not individuals—have standing to raise a Tenth Amendment defense.
Bond, a microbiologist, was accused of trying to poison her former best friend after learning the woman had become pregnant as a result of an affair with Bond’s husband. Bond was prosecuted under a federal law intended to enforce a global treaty to prevent nations from spreading the use of chemical weapons.
Bond argued the matter should have been handled under state law, which provides a more lenient sentence, because of the Tenth Amendment reserving power to the states.
The Post calls the Tenth Amendment “a tea party favorite.” The standing issue, the story says, is “a subject of considerable interest to those who want to challenge the actions of Congress.” According to the Post, Bond has drawn support from conservative and libertarian groups, including six state attorneys general “who not so coincidentally are among those suing the federal government over President Obama’s health-care act.”