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.
Search Results for ‘"bond v."’
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]
Frontiers of federal criminalization
A case called Bond v. U.S., arising from an admittedly bizarre fact pattern involving a wife’s attempt to injure a romantic rival, provides an opportunity to test the limits of extension of federal criminal law into areas that would ordinarily serve as the occasion of state-level prosecution. The Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief urging a narrow view of the proper federal criminal role in the case, in pursuit of the view that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers. [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]