Search Results for ‘supreme treaty bond’

Court decides Bond v. U.S. narrowly

A jealous wife’s attempt to poison a rival gave the Supreme Court a splendid chance to detoxify a pernicious constitutional law doctrine about the scope of the treaty power, but yesterday the Court passed up the chance. [Earlier.] My colleague Ilya Shapiro explains. Chief Justice Roberts, for the majority: “The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the federal government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon.”

P.S. Congratulations to my colleague Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz and the Cato Institute amicus program (i.e. Ilya Shapiro) for the way Justice Scalia in his concurrence picks up whole chunks of argumentation from Nick’s 2005 HLR article on the treaty power and Cato’s recent amicus brief based on the same line of argument. Also, for those keeping score, this is another embarrassing 0-9 goose-egg defeat for the Obama administration, which once again took a position totally aggrandizing of federal government power and once again could not win for it the vote of even a single Justice. [piece slightly revised for style Tues. a.m.] More: Cato podcast with Ilya Shapiro.

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup

Oral argument in Bond v. U.S.

A testy exchange between Justice Stephen Breyer and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. “was not the only signal that the administration may have difficulty winning in the case of Bond v. United States, which began as a ‘lover’s triangle’ dispute from Pennsylvania but has mushroomed into a major test of the power of Congress to implement international treaties in ways that may interfere with the prerogatives of the 50 states.” [Tony Mauro, NLJ, Daniel Fisher, earlier on Bond] Michael Greve finds the administration’s stance “breathtakingly aggressive. … when the government stumbles into Court with no principle, rule, or line to cabin its assertion of power, it loses. That’s Lopez, that’s Morrison, that’s NFIB.” [Liberty Law] Related, Peter Spiro/OJ.

Supreme Court roundup

  • Now with more detailed program descriptions: reserve your seat now for Cato’s 12th annual Constitution Day Sept. 17 in Washington, D.C.;
  • White House keeps losing SCOTUS cases 9-0, and there might be a lesson in that [Ilya Somin/USA Today, more]
  • “Another big term for amicus curiae briefs at the high court” [ABA Journal] “The Chief’s dissent reads over long stretches like something from the Cato Institute” [Michael Greve, Liberty Law Blog, on the administrative law case City of Arlington v. FCC, which was in fact one of the three cases where Cato’s amicus position lost last term]
  • Ilya Shapiro on misconceptions about last term’s Shelby County case on voting rights [USA Today] and on the pending Schuette affirmative action case from Michigan [Cato]
  • “I count myself an originalist too.” — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg [CAC] Evaluating Ginsburg’s claim that the present Court is unusually activist [Jonathan Adler]
  • In Bond v. U.S., the treaty power case, Solicitor General urges high court not to overrule Missouri v. Holland [Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, more, earlier]
  • Cato seeks certiorari in cy pres (class action slush fund) case involving Facebook [amicus brief filed in Marek v. Lane, Ilya Shapiro]

“Can a Treaty Increase the Power of Congress?”

From Cato, with video: “In 1920, in Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court seemed to say, contrary to basic constitutional principles, that a treaty could increase the legislative power of Congress. That issue is now back before the Court in Bond v. United States, a case with deliciously lurid facts involving adultery, revenge, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Cato has filed an amicus brief in the case, written by Nicholas Rosenkranz, based on his Harvard Law Review article on the subject.” Earlier here.

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup

International human rights law roundup

Can treaties confer on Congress powers otherwise not conferred by the Constitution?

Profs. Rick Pildes and Nicholas Rosenkranz have been debating the topic at Volokh Conspiracy [Pildes first, second; Rosenkranz first, second; more] The pending case of Bond v. U.S. will give the U.S. Supreme Court the chance to revisit Missouri v. Holland, the main precedent on the point [Julian Ku, Ilya Somin, Gerard Magliocca/Concur Op, Michael Greve, earlier here and here] More: Curtis Bradley, Lawfare.

September 19 roundup

  • “Ohio Man Cites Obesity as Reason to Delay Execution” [WSJ Law Blog]
  • West Hollywood bans sale of fur, no bonfires on the beach, and a thousand other California bans [New York Times]
  • “Volunteers sued for ‘civil conspiracy’ for planning an open rival to WikiTravel” [Gyrovague]
  • Practice of check-rounding at some Chipotles allows class action lawyers to put in their two cents [Ted at PoL]
  • Daniel Fisher on business cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term [Forbes]
  • In Bond v. U.S., coming back like a boomerang from an earlier ruling, Supreme Court may at last have to resolve whether the federal government can expand its constitutional powers just by signing on to treaties [Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus, Cato]
  • Law nerd’s heavy-breather: “50 Shades of Administrative Law” [LawProfBlawg]