09-1227 Bond v. U.S.

Listen to this article

Constitutional Law
Tenth Amendment; standing

A criminal defendant has standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States.

Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism “‘secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181. It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458. Federalism’s limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers limitations, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919. The claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s constitutional interests, even if those interests are also implicated.
581 F. 3d 128, reversed and remanded.

Local effect: The opinion is consistent with governing Seventh Circuit precedent. Gillespie v Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cri. 1999).

09-1227 Bond v. U.S.

Kennedy, J.; Ginsburg, J., concurring

Full Text