Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Chemical Weapons — necessary and proper clause

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 2, 2014//

Chemical Weapons — necessary and proper clause

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 2, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Criminal

Chemical Weapons — necessary and proper clause

18 U. S. C. 229(a)(1) does not apply to any criminal offense that involves a chemical.

An ordinary speaker would not describe Bond’s feud-driven act of spreading irritating chemicals as involving a “chemical weapon.” And the chemicals at issue here bear little resemblance to those whose prohibition was the object of an international Convention. Where the breadth of a statutory definition creates ambiguity, it is appropriate to look to the ordinary meaning of the term being defined (here, “chemical weapon”) in settling on a fair reading of the statute.

The Government’s reading of section 229 would transform a statute concerned with acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults. In light of the principle that Congress does not normally intrude upon the States’ police power, this Court is reluctant to conclude that Congress meant to punish Bond’s crime with a federal prosecution for a chemical weapons attack. In fact, only a handful of prosecutions have been brought under section 229, and most of those involved crimes not traditionally within the States’ purview, e.g., terrorist plots.

681 F. 3d 149, reversed and remanded.

12-158 Bond v. U.S.

Roberts, C.J.; Scalia, J., concurring; Thomas, J., concurring. Alito, J., concurring.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests