NOTE: standing to challenge the Law

Download Request: Current Document: 1 Time Of Request: Sunday, March 25, 2012 Send To: MEGADEAL, ACADEMIC UNIVERSE MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MILWAUKEE, WI

19:06:06 EST

Source: U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers' Edition Project ID: 1 of 1 DOCUMENT CAROL ANNE BOND, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES No. 09-1227 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 131 S. Ct. 2355; 180 L. Ed. 2d 269; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4558; 79 U.S.L.W. 4490; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1156 February 22, 2011, Argued June 16, 2011, Decided NOTICE: The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version. PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. United States v. Bond, 581 F.3d 128, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20724 (2009) DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner conditionally pleaded guilty in district court under 18 U.S.C.S. § 229 to unlawful possession or use of a chemical. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that petitioner lacked standing to assert that § 229 was invalid under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

sovereign. 9-0 decision. to refer to standing in the sense of whether plaintiffs are the proper litigants to raise a Tenth Amendment issue. in addition. The Supreme Court held that petitioner did have standing to challenge § 229 as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the states. "interferes. art. could assert that her injury resulted from disregard of the federal structure of the government. invalid. OUTCOME: The Third Circuit's judgment was reversed and remanded. enumerated powers. proper case. have no standing to raise any question under the Tenth Amendment . The U. art. Power Co. standing to challenge. "prudential". absent a state's participation in the proceedings. 306 U. federalism's limitations were not a matter of rights belonging only to the states. Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > Particular Parties Criminal Law & Procedure > Appeals > Right to Appeal > Defendants [HN3] A defendant's challenge to a conviction and sentence satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement. whether there is a legal injury at all and whether the particular litigant is one who may assert it can involve similar inquiries. III limitations. woman.S. v. TVA as authoritative respecting U.S. The statement under Tennessee Electric that parties. v. III does not restrict the opposing party's ability to object to relief being sought at its expense. III standing thus has no bearing upon a criminal defendant's capacity to assert defenses in a district court. Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > General Overview Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > General Overview Criminal Law & Procedure > Defenses > Right to Present [HN2] One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate. enact. and conflation of the two concepts can cause confusion. because incarceration constitutes a concrete injury.S. TVA. violating. sentence. Const. standing to raise LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > General Overview [HN1] The United States Supreme Court has disapproved of Tennessee Elec. CORE TERMS: federalism. art. petitioner had no standing to assert a Tenth Amendment challenge.S. Const. III standing requirement had no bearing on petitioner's capacity to assert defenses in her criminal case. exceeded. an ongoing interest in the dispute on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish "concrete adverseness. Const. Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Standing > General Overview Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > Particular Parties [HN5] To the extent that it was the intention of the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee Elec. indicted. both standing to obtain the relief requested and. Statutory standing and the existence of a cause of action are closely connected and sometimes identical questions. Petitioner also was not precluded from arguing that § 229 interfered with a specific aspect of state sovereignty. The Third Circuit held that. Const. constitutional interests. Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Standing > Injury in Fact Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses. and her appeal met constitutional standing prerequisites. prudential standing. electric. treaty. art. reserved. Petitioner. Demurrers & Objections > Failures to State Claims [HN4] If a person alleging injury is remote from the zone of interests a statute protects. separation of powers. among other requirements. separation-of-powers. Power Co. as a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy. federal statute. Petitioner could assert her own injury resulting from governmental action that exceeded the authority that federalism defined." When those conditions are met. U. 1 concurrence.OVERVIEW: Petitioner challenged § 229 based on the premise that Congress exceeded its powers by enacting the statute in contravention of basic federalism principles.S. as the principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty were intertwined. absent the states or their officers. sovereignty. amicus. it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's later precedents. Still. justiciable. The requirement of U. concrete. not the justiciability of a dispute. caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction. the question whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief goes to the merits in the typical case. "cause of action. chemical weapons. legal rights. 118 (1939).

The federal balance is. It allows states to respond.should be deemed neither controlling nor instructive on the issue of standing as that term is now defined and applied. Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > Relations Among Governments > General Overview Constitutional Law > Supremacy Clause > General Overview Constitutional Law > State Autonomy > General Overview [HN7] Federalism has more than one dynamic. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the states alone to vindicate. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. through the enactment of positive law. Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > Relations Among Governments > General Overview Constitutional Law > State Autonomy > General Overview [HN9] Federalism protects the liberty of all persons within a state by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > Particular Parties Constitutional Law > Relations Among Governments > General Overview [HN11] If the constitutional structure of the United States Government that protects individual liberty is compromised. that liberty is at stake. can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Standing > Injury in Fact Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > Particular Parties Constitutional Law > Relations Among Governments > General Overview [HN6] An individual. The allocation of powers in the federal system preserves the integrity. but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the states. True. and redressable. in part. permits innovation and experimentation. But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. of course. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers. particular. dignity. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather. individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object. It is true that the federal structure serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of the states and the national government vis-a-vis one another. Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > General Overview Constitutional Law > Relations Among Governments > General Overview Constitutional Law > State Autonomy > General Overview [HN8] The federal structure allows local policies more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society. An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the national government and the states when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete. and makes government more responsive by putting the states in competition for a mobile citizenry. to ensure that states function as political entities in their own right. federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a state. Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > Elements Constitutional Law > Relations Among Governments > General Overview Constitutional Law > State Autonomy > General Overview [HN10] The limitations that federalism entails are not a matter of rights belonging only to the states. and residual sovereignty of the states. an end in itself. in a proper case. federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. these objects cannot be vindicated by the Judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy. Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. enables greater citizen involvement in democratic processes. to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life. Some of these liberties are of a political character. .

as the principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty were intertwined. and action that exceeds the national government's enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of states. the result is the same. Const. challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principles of federalism. could assert that her injury resulted from disregard of the federal structure of the govern- . III requirements. However. so too may a litigant. petitioner had no standing to assert a Tenth Amendment challenge. federalism's limitations were not a matter of rights belonging only to the states. art. Overview: Petitioner challenged § 229 based on the premise that Congress exceeded its powers by enacting the statute in contravention of basic federalism principles. SUMMARY: Procedural posture: Petitioner conditionally pleaded guilty in district court under 18 U. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment. even if a state's constitutional interests are also implicated. and her appeal met constitutional standing prerequisites. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that petitioner lacked standing to assert that § 229 was invalid under the Tenth Amendment. That claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a state's constitutional interests.C. DECISION: [**269] Accused convicted under statute that was part of federal act implementing treaty ratified by United States held to have standing to challenge statute on asserted ground that it interfered with powers reserved to states under Federal Constitution's Tenth Amendment.S. It is not enough that a litigant suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. the federal Judiciary cannot hear the claim. in connection with the claim being asserted.S. and in some instances. Petitioner also was not precluded from arguing that § 229 interfered with a specific aspect of state sovereignty. Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Standing > General Overview Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > Elements Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > Particular Parties [HN14] An individual who challenges federal action on federalism grounds is.S." or whether it has independent force of its own. of course. If. Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > State Autonomy > General Overview [HN13] The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. in a proper case. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim. § 229 to unlawful possession or use of a chemical. III standing requirement had no bearing on petitioner's capacity to assert defenses in her criminal case. The Third Circuit held that. subject to the U. a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particular. applicable to all litigants and claims. the result may be that a state is the only entity capable of demonstrating the requisite injury. The U. Const. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the national government.Constitutional Law > Congressional Duties & Powers > Reserved Powers Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Standing > Particular Parties Constitutional Law > Relations Among Governments > General Overview Constitutional Law > Separation of Powers Constitutional Law > State Autonomy > General Overview [HN12] Just as it is appropriate for an individual. where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy. Petitioner. and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. as well as prudential rules. as a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy. she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of the United States Government. art. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. in a proper case. Petitioner could assert her own injury resulting from governmental action that exceeded the authority that federalism defined. Whether the Tenth Amendment is regarded as simply a "truism. Individuals have no standing to complain simply that their government is violating the law. to invoke separation-of-powers or checks-and-balances constraints. fairly traceable to the conduct complained of. both are expressed by it. absent a state's participation in the proceedings. The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury to persons in individual cases.S. The Supreme Court held that petitioner did have standing to challenge § 229 as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the states.

Power Co. The requirement of U. both standing to obtain the relief requested and. 9-0 decision. art. art. art. 306 .S. [**LEdHN2] PARTIES §3. [**LEdHN3] COURTS §237 CASE OR CONTROVERSY -. the question whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief goes to the merits in the typical case. Const. Still.3 STANDING -. TVA as authoritative respecting U. caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction. 1 concurrence. because incarceration constitutes a concrete injury. TVA.JUSTICIABILITY Headnote:[4] If a person alleging injury is remote from the zone of interests a statute protects.S. v. Const. U. an ongoing interest in the dispute on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish "concrete adverseness. III limitations. III does not restrict the opposing party's ability to object to relief being sought at its expense. Power Co.ABSENCE OF STATES OR THEIR OFFICERS Headnote:[5] To the extent that it was the intention of the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee Elec. Const.ment. v. [**LEdHN5] PARTIES §2 STANDING -. and conflation of the two concepts can cause confusion.CONCRETE ADVERSENESS Headnote:[2] One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate. Outcome: The Third Circuit's judgment was reversed and remanded. LAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES: [**270] [**LEdHN1] PARTIES §2 STANDING Headnote:[1] The United States Supreme Court has disapproved of Tennessee Elec. Statutory standing and the existence of a cause of action are closely connected and sometimes identical questions. [**LEdHN4] COURTS §236PARTIES §2 STANDING -.INCARCERATION Headnote:[3] A defendant's challenge to a conviction and sentence satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement. whether there is a legal injury at all and whether the particular litigant is one who may assert it can involve similar inquiries. not the justiciability of a dispute.S. among other requirements. III standing thus has no bearing upon a criminal defendant's capacity to assert defenses in a district court." When those conditions are met. in addition.

The allocation of powers in the federal system preserves the integrity. [**LEdHN6] PARTIES §2 STANDING -. to refer to standing in the sense of whether plaintiffs are the proper litigants to raise a Tenth Amendment issue. federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. The statement under Tennessee Electric that parties.DELEGATED POWER Headnote:[9] Federalism protects the liberty of all persons within a state by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. have no standing to raise any question under the Tenth Amendment should be deemed neither controlling nor instructive on the issue of standing as that term is now defined and applied. permits innovation and experimentation. enables greater citizen involvement in democratic processes. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life. 59 S. 118. [**LEdHN7] STATES. to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power. True. AND POSSESSIONS §16 FEDERALISM Headnote:[8] The federal structure allows local policies more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society. [**LEdHN8] STATES. Ct. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather. Federalism secures the freedom of the individual.LACK OF STATE AS PARTY Headnote:[6] An individual. through the enactment of positive law. dignity. 366 (1939). Her rights in this regard do not belong to a state. federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.S. [**LEdHN9] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW §53 FEDERALISM -. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers. But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. these objects cannot be vindicated by the Judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. TERRITORIES.U. to ensure that states function as political entities in their own right. and residual sovereignty of the states. It is true that the federal structure serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities [**271] of the states and the national government vis-a-vis one another.S. TERRITORIES. but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the states. it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's later precedents. and makes government more responsive by putting the states in competition for a mobile citizenry. in part. that liberty is at stake. AND POSSESSIONS §16 FEDERALISM -. 306 U. 118. of course. The federal balance is. absent the states or their officers. in a proper case.ALLOCATION OF POWERS Headnote:[7] Federalism has more than one dynamic. [**LEdHN10] . It allows states to respond. an end in itself. can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Some of these liberties are of a political character.

INJURY Headnote:[11] If the constitutional structure of the United States Government that protects individual liberty is compromised. particular. individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object. An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the national government and the states when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete. If. and in some instances. the result may be that a state is the only entity capable of demonstrating the requisite injury. It is not enough that a litigant suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.INDIVIDUAL INJURY -.INTERFERENCE WITH STATE SOVEREIGNTY Headnote:[13] The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the national government. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment. so too may a litigant. Const. That claim need not depend on [**272] the vicarious assertion of a state's constitutional interests. fairly traceable to the conduct complained of. [**LEdHN14] PARTIES §3. where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case . to invoke separation-of-powers or checks-and-balances constraints.STATE'S FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL INTEREST Headnote:[12] Just as it is appropriate for an individual. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim. [**LEdHN11] PARTIES §3 INDIVIDUAL STANDING -. However.S.PRUDENTIAL RULES -. challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principles of federalism. of course. applicable to all litigants and claims. a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particular. art.INDIVIDUAL AND STATE INTERESTS Headnote:[10] The limitations that federalism entails are not a matter of rights belonging only to the states. both are expressed by it. subject to the U.FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM Headnote:[14] An individual who challenges federal action on federalism grounds is. in a proper case. [**LEdHN13] PARTIES §3 STANDING -. The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury to persons in individual cases.PARTIES §2 STANDING -. the federal Judiciary cannot hear the claim. III requirements. in a proper case. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the states alone to vindicate. Individuals have no standing to complain simply that their government is violating the law. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. as well as prudential rules. in connection with the claim being asserted. and action that exceeds the national government's enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of states.3 PARTIES §22 STANDING -. [**LEdHN12] PARTIES §2 INDIVIDUAL STANDING -. and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. even if a state's constitutional interests are also implicated. and redressable.

___. 2d 120. 2d 317. Ed. of a chemical [*2358] that "can cause death. 366. 144. it is inconsistent with this Court's later precedents and should be deemed neither controlling nor instructive on the issue of standing as that term is now defined and applied. 59 S." or whether it has independent force of its own. Ed. 2395. 111 S. 2d. at 276-279. ___ . at 276-277. Bond seeks to vindicate [***4] her own constitutional interests.___.S. Ed. Pp. 2d 184." §§ 229(a). 2d. 118. This happened with Tennessee Electric's Tenth Amendment discussion. at 276-283. 462 U. (2) Tennessee Electric is also irrelevant with respect to prudential standing rules. 180 L.___. 1003. 458. The District Court denied Bond's motion to dismiss the § 229 charges on the ground that the statute exceeded Congress' constitutional authority to enact. accepted the Government's position that she lacked standing. renewing her Tenth Amendment claim. at 139. She entered a conditional guilty plea. she began harassing the woman. 25 L. Pp. 140 L. 452. Ed. 59 S. 306 U. Chadha. Inc. Held: Bond has standing to challenge the federal [***2] statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States. Ed. not to the dispute's justiciability. a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism. (1) Federalism has more than one dynamic. It enables States to enact positive law in [*2359] response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times. 103 S. 59 S. the Court repeatedly stated that the problem with the power companies' suit was a lack of "standing" or a "cause of action. The Government has since changed its view on Bond's standing. federalism " 'secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power. claiming that the statute creating the TVA exceeded the National Government's powers in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Federalism's limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. 112 S..g. 397 U. Ed. 523 U. she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of the United States Government. 152-154. Ct. In a proper case. See Gregory v. 92. Ct.' New York v. 505 U. Ct... 229F(1). SYLLABUS [**273] [*2357] When petitioner Bond discovered that her close friend was pregnant by Bond's husband.. 118 S. Here. 83 L. ___ . Steel Co. TVA. 543. 2764. Camp. see 306 U.___.S. Ed. see. Ed.S." treating those concepts as interchangeable. e. In doing so. v. 2408. 919. the result is the same. at 277-279. ___ . To the extent the statement might instead be read to suggest a private party does not have standing to raise a Tenth Amendment issue. appointed to defend the judgment. 77 L. INS v. § 229. 2d. 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. 180 L. 90 S.S. should be read to refer to the absence of a cause of action for injury caused by economic competition.S. Ed. 120 L. the Court declined to reach the merits where private power companies sought to enjoin [**274] the federally chartered Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from producing and selling electric power. Ed. Article III's standing requirement had no bearing on Bond's capacity to assert defenses in the District Court. 180 L. Ed. The Third Circuit. And Article III's prerequisites are met with regard to her standing to appeal. however. 2d 410. at 279-283. v. just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress. 366.S. e. temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans. (8).. Pp. Whether the Tenth Amendment is regarded as simply a "truism. Bond was indicted for violating 18 U. which forbids knowing possession or use. In allocating powers between the States and National Government. (a) The Third Circuit relied on a single sentence in Tennessee Elec. 2d. Pp. separation-of-powers limitations. There. United States. She did just that. Ct. 83 L. Ct. 115 L.S. Ct. Citizens for Better Environment.C. 543. (b) Amicus. 180 L. 543.g. Ed. 83. Power Co.S. [***3] E. however. 306 U. The claim need not depend on the .g. and which is part of a federal Act implementing a chemical weapons treaty ratified by the United States. v. The woman suffered a minor burn after Bond put caustic substances on objects the woman was likely to touch. ___ ___. 180 L. Ed. Ct. 150. 83 L. reserving the right to appeal the ruling on the statute's validity. (1) The Court has disapproved of Tennessee Electric as authoritative for purposes of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement. See Association of Data Processing Service Organizations. 501 U. 2d. 827. for nonpeaceful purposes.S.or controversy. The statement on which the Third Circuit relied here. 2d 210. But in arguing that the Government has acted in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Ashcroft. Pp. contends that for Bond to argue the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert only a State's legal rights and interests. Ct. 366. and conflation of the two concepts can cause confusion. 181. (7). The question whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief typically "goes to the merits" of a case. ___ . at 144.

Here. Bond asserts that the public policy of the Pennsylvania.. in which Breyer. the treaty cannot be the source of congressional power to regulate or prohibit her conduct. The indicted defendant. joined. 2d. J.___. but here. car door handle. the prosecution she seeks to counter. The statute. Pp. JUDGES: Kennedy. petitioner had no standing to challenge the statute as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the States.3d 128. Ed. Pennsylvania. Michael R. Bond's victim suffered a minor burn on her hand and contacted federal investigators. at 281-283. § 229. leading to the criminal acts charged here. 2d. acts that resulted in a criminal conviction [**276] on a minor state charge. J. Clement argued the cause for petitioner. Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution. (c) The Court expresses no view on the merits of Bond's challenge to the statute's validity. COUNSEL: Paul D. by special leave of court. where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy. filed a concurring opinion. Pp. 2d. by enacting it. thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States. After discovering that her close friend was pregnant and that the father was Bond's husband. Ed. (2) The Government errs in contending that Bond should be permitted to assert [***5] only that Congress could not enact the challenged statute under its enumerated powers but that standing should be denied if she argues that the statute interferes with state sovereignty. Stephen R. P. Ginsburg. 581 F. 180 L. The [***7] Court of Appeals held that because a State was not a party to the federal criminal proceeding. The law to [**275] which she is subject.S. at 279-281. J. enacted in its capacity as sovereign. Dreeben argued the cause for respondent. 180 L. Bond subjected the woman to a campaign of harassing telephone calls and letters. and the punishment she must face might not have come about had the matter been left for Pennsylvania to decide. This case presents the question whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that. and. Bond persisted in her hostile acts. Ed. OPINION BY: Kennedy OPINION [*2360] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. ___.___. Petitioner Carol Anne Bond lived outside Philadelphia. 180 L. placing caustic substances on objects the woman was likely to touch. at least in the present instance. ___ .vicarious assertion of a State's constitutional interests. The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. McAllister argued the cause as amicus curiae. on the premise that Congress exceeded its powers by enacting it in contravention of basic federalism principles. this Court now reverses that determination. [***8] who identified .C. There is no support for the Government's proposed distinction between different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential standing rules. sought to argue the invalidity of the statute. by the Court of Appeals on remand and are not addressed in this opinion. has been displaced by that of the National Government. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the National Government's enumerated powers.. at 283. supporting petitioner. The merits of petitioner's challenge to the statute's validity are to be considered. in the first instance. even if those interests are also implicated. petitioner here. was enacted to comply with a treaty. Individuals seeking to challenge such measures are subject to Article III and prudential standing rules applicable to all litigants and claims. I This case arises from a bitter personal dispute. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. but petitioner contends that. [***6] she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of the Government. ___ . supporting the judgment below. and action exceeding the National Government's enumerated powers undermines the States' sovereign interests. Having concluded that petitioner does have standing to challenge the federal statute on these grounds. and front doorknob. She relied on the Tenth Amendment. by extension. Bond sought revenge.. including her mailbox. 18 U. reversed and remanded.

2010). 716 (CA9 1981) (same). She was sentenced to six years in prison. 918-921 (CA5 2011) (reserving issue). 179 L. 131 S. 563 U.2d 693 (CA4 1991). 90 S.Brooklyn Legal Servs. 16 (CA11 1982). P. 83 L. ___. 366. 140 L.3d 9. it is clear Article III's prerequisites are met. EPA." §§ 229(a). The statute was enacted as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Camp. citing. United States Dept.S. E. Metrolina Family Practice Group. When those conditions are met. 178 L. § 229 et seq. at 136-138. it is apparent--and in fact conceded not only by the Government but also by amicus--that Article III poses no barrier. 555. Section 229 forbids knowing possession or use of any chemical that "can cause death. 565 F. v. 2681-856. Ed. Ct. [HN2] [**LEdHR2] [2] One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate. Corp. .S. 2d 351 (1992).United States v.C. 462 F. Power Co. 504 U. 185 F. Ed.S. II To conclude that petitioner lacks standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States. Greene. [*2362] The requirement of Article III standing thus had no bearing upon Bond's capacity to assert defenses in the District [***12] Court. 362 F. 14. with decisions of some other Courts of Appeals.Bond as the perpetrator. ___. [HN1] [**LEdHR1] [1] This Court long ago disapproved of the case as authoritative respecting Article III limitations. two counts of violating § 229. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations. Bond renewed her challenge [***9] to the statute. 397 U. 285 F. v. a member of the bar of this Court. 112 S. if not conflict. 131 S. both standing to obtain the relief requested.S." Spencer v.S. the Government took the position that Bond did not have standing. TVA. [HN3] [**LEdHR3] [3] Bond's challenge to her conviction and sentence "satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement. Nance v. The Act implements provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development. Ed. see also United States v. Bond does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 229 on Tenth Amendment grounds. Lomont v.. n. 152-154. moreover. Hacker. [*2361] the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. 2130. In the instant case.3d 25. 1284-1285 (CA10 2004). 632 F. among other requirements.3d 1279.. D. Ct. Ct. 1. 306 U. Ct. Tennessee Electric is the appropriate place to begin. Stephen McAllister.C. United States v. Corp. Supp. 971-972 (CA9 2009). 523 U.. When Bond sought certiorari. other Courts of Appeals have taken a similar approach. 455. 118. As the Court of Appeals noted here. [**277] Vincent. 2d 43 (1998). 560-561. (8). 581 F.3d 912. an "ongoing interest in the dispute" on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish "concrete adverseness. 645 F. 25 L. . 59 S.. 552 F. 1368. Legal Servs. A. The Court granted certiorari. The Court of Appeals agreed. 350 U. of Energy. contending the statute was beyond Congress' constitutional authority to enact. 2d 184 (1970). 357 (CADC 2002) (same). 827. 234-235 (CA2 2006).3d. 1314 (WDNC 1989). Parker. v. 7. the Court [***10] of Appeals relied on a single sentence from this Court's opinion in Tennessee Elec.3d 219.3d 128 (2009). n.S.2d 701. 978. 666 F. 229F(1). O'Neill. 562 U. Production. 543 (1939). Corp. In the District Court. among other offenses. Ed. 112 Stat. v. the Government advised this Court that it had changed its position and that. Bond moved to dismiss the § 229 charges. and. As for Bond's standing to appeal. v. Legal Servs. 767 F. 33-36 (CA1 2005). See 581 F.3d 693.S. The District Court denied the motion. Johnson. Defenders of Wildlife. Bond was indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for. in addition. 5. The Court of Appeals asked for supplemental briefs on the question whether Bond had standing to raise the Tenth Amendment as a ground for invalidating a federal statute in the absence of a State's participation in the proceedings. among other authorities. a treaty the United States ratified in 1997. 2020. 2d 285 (2010). It should be [***11] clear that Tennessee Electric does not cast doubt on Bond's standing for purposes of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement. see Lujan v. See Brief for United States (filed July 9. Atlanta Gas Light Co. temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" where not intended for a "peaceful purpose.2d 1359. § 6701 et seq. Ed. constitutes a concrete injury. 1125 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 119 L. Article III does not restrict the opposing party's ability to object to relief being sought at its expense. reserving the right to appeal the ruling on the validity of the statute. Bond entered a conditional plea of guilty. 431 F.g. App. 150. Kemna. 525-527 (CA8 2009). Sullivan. Medeiros v. . 700-704 (CA7 1999).3d 522. ___. Inc. See Gillespie v. because the incarceration . aff'd 929 F. Ed. (7). Oregon v. Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. In the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 18 U. caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction. That approach is in tension.C. 22 U. Indianapolis.3d 965.S. and appointed an amicus curiae to defend the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 2d 1118. Ct.S. Ct. in its view. In its supplemental brief in the Court of Appeals. filed an amicus brief and presented an oral argument that have been of considerable assistance to the Court." Camreta v. 118 S.

if this were not so. Ed.S. This is the case with the Tenth Amendment discussion in Tennessee [*2363] Electric. Ct. On this reading. It was conceded that competition from the TVA would "inflict substantial damage" upon the power companies. E. Ed. 59 S. id. 59 S. and we need not explore all of its implications. 826-830 (2004). Ed. at 144. but for statutory authority for its performance. among other reasons. at 142. absent the states or their officers. 90 S. 83 L. [HN4] [**LEdHR4] [4] If. the person alleging injury is remote from the zone of interests a statute protects. see also Bellia.To resolve the case. 1003. 59 S.. 25 L. 140 L. 543 (no "standing" without "a cause of action or a right to sue"). at 157-158. Id. See also Data Processing. 543 ("no standing. Ed. Declining to reach the merits. the distinct concepts can be difficult to keep separate. id. They conferred no private right of action on business competitors. and throughout its opinion... 83 L. Ed. ("The sale of government property in competition with others is not a violation of the Tenth Amendment). Citizens for Better Environment.g... Ibid.S. 366. According to the companies. Article III and the Cause of Action. 83. 543. 523 U. 59 S. The Court then added the sentence upon which the Court of Appeals relied in the instant case. Ct. and n. 89 Iowa L.. 366. Ed. A holding that state utilities regulations did not supply a cause of action against a competitor is of no relevance to the instant case. The Tennessee Electric Court noted that "[a] distinct ground upon which standing to maintain the suit is said to rest is that the acts of the Authority cannot be [***15] upheld without permitting federal regulation of purely local matters reserved to the states or the people by the Tenth Amendment. The Court rejected the argument. Ct. 2d 210. and the word standing can be interpreted in that sense. 96-97. It explained that the suit was [***13] premised on the principle that a person threatened with injury by conduct "which. Ct. the Tennessee Electric Court stated that the problem with the power companies' suit was a lack of "standing" or a "cause of action. 366. whether there is a legal injury at all and whether the particular litigant is one who may assert it can involve similar inquiries. Id. 118 S. Ed. 777. 118 S. 366. 83 L. would be a violation of his [**278] legal rights" could request an injunction from a court of equity and by this means test the validity of the statute. 827. Ed. 2d 210." no "right to sue for an injunction"). 83 L. In that part of its analysis. The quoted statement was in the context of a decision which held that [**279] business competitors had no legal injury. 59 S. the appellants.. 543. there was no basis for a suit in which the TVA might be forced to invoke its congressional authorization. 59 S. at 139-140. Ed. had done nothing more than compete as a supplier of electricity. 140 L.. this Court must consider next whether Tennessee Electric is irrelevant with respect to prudential rules of standing as well. Ct. 366. id. v. at 144. Rev. 59 S.. and. at 141-142. Ct. 83 L. not the justiciability of a dispute. Ct. and that even if the States had not [***16] done so and the TVA had violated those regulations. 397 U. at 143. id.. Id. 1003. Ct. Ct. concluding the Tenth Amendment did not give one business a right to keep another from competing. even if it were shorn of congressional statutory authority. 366.S. and conflation of the two concepts can cause confusion. 83 L. Still. 366. 59 S. the regulations were for the States to enforce. 83 L. Ed." 306 U. the federal statute authorizing the creation and operation of the TVA was invalid because.. for instance. at 137. And since state law did not purport to grant any of the power companies a monopoly. 83 L. The question in Tennessee Electric was whether a group of private power companies could bring suit to enjoin the federally chartered Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from producing and selling electric power. Even though decisions since Tennessee Electric have been careful to use the terms "cause of action" and "standing" with more precision. the question whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief "goes to the merits" in the typical case. 306 U. the sentence that has been the source of disagreement among Courts of Appeals: "As we have seen there is no objection to the Authority's operations by the states. Ed. at 138-143. Ct. The statement explained that the States in which the TVA operated exempted it from their public utilities regulations. But the Court concluded that the TVA. Ct. Ed. at 138. however. 366. 83 L. at 139. This reading is consistent with the Tennessee Electric Court's use of the term "standing" elsewhere in its opinion to refer to the existence of a state-law cause of action. See id. id. 543. the Court concluded the power companies' lawsuit should be dismissed.Steel Co. it exceeded the powers of the National Government in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Ed. 543. 2d 184 (cause of action under the Ad- . 2 (1998) (noting that statutory standing and the existence of a cause of action are "closely connected" and "sometimes identical" questions). 59 S." Ibid. 543. Ct.. 366. 543 (no "standing" because no "legal cause of complaint")." It treated those concepts as interchangeable. 83 L. the statement reiterated an earlier point. 366.S. 543. at 92. have no standing in this suit to raise any question under the amendment. 543 (no Tenth Amendment "standing" and no Ninth Amendment "cause of action" [***14] for same reasons). 59 S.. Ct.

See New York. [**280] and residual sovereignty of the States. In amicus' view.C. [HN10] [**LEdHR10] [10] The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. Ct. 500. that liberty is at stake. [*2365] The recognition of an injured person's standing to object to a violation of a constitutional principle that allo- . 543 U. permits suit based on injury from business competition). supra. As explained below. federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power. Tesmer. inconsistent with our later precedents. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State. to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right. 125. these objects cannot be vindicated by the Judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy. and redressable. 119 S. but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the States. True.S. 527 U. it is. 2240. 120 L. particular. for reasons to be explained. But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. A The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. 2d 636 (1999). 115 L. Ed. 120 L. 129-130. 501 U. and second by protecting the people." and makes government "more responsive by putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry. Ct. 2d 120. Ashcroft. 706. Ct. 2d 519 (2004). Thompson. dissenting)).ministrative Procedure Act. 2395. 95 S. of course. J. [HN9] [**LEdHR9] [9] Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. 422 U. 112 S. Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves. 2d 410 (1991). Ct. in part. 759. 2d 640 (1991) (Blackmun. however. 2d 343 (1975). 490. An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete. It is true that the federal structure serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of the States and the National Government vis-a-vis one another. The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances [***18] freedom. at 181.S. [HN8] [**LEdHR8] [8] The federal structure allows local policies "more sensitive to the [***19] diverse needs of a heterogeneous society. Ed. and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. Ct. "State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: 'Rather. 722. to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power." permits "innovation and experimentation. Ed. 501 U. 144 L. 2546.S. Some of these liberties are of a political character. The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity. 144. 2197. 181. 564. Ed. to argue that the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert the legal rights and interests of States and States alone.S.' New York v. 45 L. 499. That." Warth v. The sentence from Tennessee Electric that we have quoted and discussed should be deemed neither controlling nor instructive on the issue of standing as [***17] that term is now defined and applied.S." Gregory v. Yet [HN5] [**LEdHR5] [5] the quoted statement also could be read to refer to standing in the sense of whether the power companies were the proper litigants to raise a Tenth Amendment issue. To the extent that might have been the intention of the Tennessee Electric Court. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. Ct. 111 S. 505 U. in a proper case. Ed. 2408. dignity. see also Kowalski v.S. [HN7] [**LEdHR7] [7] Federalism has more than one dynamic. 112 S. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate. Ct. 452. Ed. Maine. 2d 120 (1992) (quoting Coleman v. can assert injury from governmental action taken in [*2364] excess of the authority that federalism defines. 115 L. III Amicus contends that federal courts should not adjudicate a claim like Bond's because of the prudential rule that a party "generally must assert his own legal rights and interests. 5 U. The federal balance is." enables greater citizen "involvement in democratic processes. [HN6] [**LEdHR6] [6] The individual. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life. 758. 111 S. 2408. is not so." Alden v. from whom all governmental powers are derived. that "freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments. 160 L.. When government acts in excess of its [***20] lawful powers. not one. 125 S. See ibid. § 702. Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. Ed.S. federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. 458. United States. It allows States to respond. Seldin. an end in itself. through the enactment of positive law.

The Government contends petitioner asserts only that Congress could not enact the challenged statute under its enumerated powers. Brief for United States 18 (filed Dec. 3138. the prosecution she seeks to counter. that the conduct with which she is charged is "local in nature" and "should be left to local authorities to prosecute" and that congressional regulation of that conduct "signals a massive [***24] and unjustifiable expansion of federal law enforcement into state-regulated domain. Ct. Ct. There is no basis to support the Government's proposed distinction between different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential standing rules. petitioner argues that under Pennsylvania law the expected maximum term of imprisonment she could have received for the same conduct was barely more than a third of her federal sentence. Byrd. 514 U.S. 141 L. A.S. at 33. The premise that petitioner does or should avoid making an "interference-with-sovereignty" argument is flawed. 524 U. pp. 2312. 103 S. 3. Northern Pipeline Constr. 118 S. both are expressed by it.. As [*2366] noted. Const. e. in a proper case. even if a State's constitutional interests are also implicated. Ed. so too may a litigant. by cases in which individuals sustain discrete. Free Enterprise Fund v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Bowsher v. 1447. Ed. v. 79 L.. 2091. 295 U. Inc. and they are not disabled from relying on those principles in otherwise justiciable cases and controversies. Id. 102 S. challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principles of federalism. Chadha is not unique in this respect. § 7. ___. v. Ct. 2010).cates power within government is illustrated. Yet individuals. 130 S. 2764. The procedure diminished the role of the Executive. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. 714. Ct. 2d 598 (1982).S. L. Plaut v. The law to which petitioner is subject. individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object. 211.. and the punishment she must face might not have come about if the matter were left for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to decide.). 73 L. A cardinal principle of separation of powers was vindicated at the insistence [***22] of an individual. Compare Clinton v.g. 131 L.. the Government agrees that petitioner has standing to challenge the validity of § 229. [HN11] [**LEdHR11] [11] If the constitutional structure of our Government that protects individual liberty is compromised. 1570 (1935). 92 L. 579. 462 U. Ct. 2:07-cr-00528-JG-1 (ED Pa. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Synar. 117 S.S. Ed.S. are protected by the operations of separation of powers and checks and balances. [***23] That claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State's constitutional interests. United States. 2d 317 (1983). [HN13] [**LEdHR13] [13] The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. the requirement that a bill enacted by Congress be presented to the President for signature before it can become law gives the President a check over Congress' exercise of legislative power. Ct. in an analogous context. 115 S. for example. The structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the individual as well. enacted in its capacity as sovereign. too. 138 L. [HN12] [**LEdHR12] [12] Just as it is appropriate for an individual. Chadha. in part. 433-436. Sawyer. Indeed. Chadha's challenge was sustained. B In this regard it is necessary to address a misconception in the position the Government now urges this Court to adopt. 417. A. however. 811. Ed.S. indeed one who was not a citizen of the United States but who still was a person whose liberty was at risk.. 177 L. City of New York. 417 (1952). the Court should deny her standing. depends on describing petitioner's claim in a narrow way. Ed. the Government insists. has been displaced by that of the National Government. That concession. Ed. see also. Separation-of-powers principles are intended. In INS v. 19. 27. 62 Ohio Law Abs. Ed. 837. 521 U. v. to invoke separation-of-powers or checks-and-balances constraints.S. 829-830. Were she to argue. 50. In the precedents [***21] of this Court. The public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." either instead of or in [**282] addition to her enumerated powers contention. 919. See U. it was an individual who successfully challenged the so-called legislative veto--a procedure that Congress used in an attempt to invalidate an executive determination without presenting the measure to the President. that the statute "interferes with a specific aspect of state sovereignty. 55 S. 2d 583 (1986)." Record in No. the claims of individuals--not of Government departments--have been the [**281] principal source of judicial decisions concerning separation of powers and checks and balances. Schechter Poultry Corp. 863. 458 U. Ct. 2d 393 (1998) (injured parties have standing to challenge Presidential line-item veto) with Raines v. I.S. 2d 328 (1995). justiciable injury from actions that transgress separation-of-powers limitations.. 72 S. to protect each branch of government from incursion by the others. Ct. 2858. 478 U. Spendthrift Farm. 77 L. but the challenger sought to protect not the prerogatives of the Presidency as such but rather his own right to avoid deportation under an invalid order. in a proper case. Impermissible .S. Doc. Ed. 6. 495. 343 U. Here she asserts. For example. 2d 849 (1997) (Congress Members do not). 561 U. 3181. 106 S.S. Art. 2d 706 (2010). Co. Yet the dynamic between and among the branches is not the only object of the Constitution's concern. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment. 96 L. Ed. Ct. 1153.

in connection with the claim being asserted. at 155-159. If. 2d 351. Bond. Ed. the result here is the same. concurring.S. Ed. 124. but is illegal and void. [HN14] [**LEdHR14] [14] An individual who challenges federal action on these grounds is.. Ed. 447. 737. J. Ct. as well as prudential rules. And that is so even where the constitutional provision that would render the conviction void is directed at protecting a party not before the Court. Overbreadth. Lopez. 564. Darby. In this case." Frothinghamv. Ct. and in some instances. 119 L. fairly traceable to the conduct complained of. of course. Ed. the defendant is entitled to go free. 739.S.S. . 18. Mellon). It can be addressed by the Court of Appeals on remand. Ed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Other defendants might assert that a law exceeds Congress' power because it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. 25 L. The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury to persons in individual cases. . "A [***28] conviction under [such a law] is not merely erroneous. 755. 23 L. "is not a crime. 262 U. Ct. L. 1321. has a personal right not to be convicted under a constitutionally invalid law. Ct.S. 468 U.. Whether the Tenth Amendment is regarded [**283] as simply a " 'truism. the result may be that a State is the only entity [***26] capable of demonstrating the requisite injury. 2d 120. For this reason. 451. and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment." Id. 549. It is so ordered. CONCUR BY: GINSBURG CONCUR Justice Ginsburg. 100 U. or the Establishment Clause. 2d 120 (quoting United States v.. Monaghan. Ct." Allen v.S. Ed. This Court expresses no view on the merits of that argument. Rev. 2d 626 (1995)." Ex parte Siebold. § 229.. 505 U. at 560-561. § 8. 1331-1333 (2000). I join the Court's opinion and write separately to make the [***27] following observation. subject to the Article III requirements. 1624. Rev. 1981 Sup. Lujan. I. Art. concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("Due process . See also North Carolina v. 488 (1923) (decided with Massachusetts v. 2d 556 (1984). applicable to all litigants and claims. In this case. 89 S. The Court must entertain the objection--and reverse the con- . 2d 656 (1969) (Black. a court has no "prudential" license to decline to consider whether the statute under which the defendant has been charged lacks constitutional application to her conduct. Ed. 85 L.interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government. 395 U. Const. The ultimate issue of the statute's validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the President's Article II. however." the Court has held.S. § 2 Treaty Power. 112 S. supra. is a guarantee that a man should be tried and convicted only in accordance with valid laws of the land. Ed. 609 (1941)). 112 S. 2130. Ct. As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing. 2408. like any other defendant. or whether it has independent force of its own. 514 U. 1. Bond argues that the statute under which she was charged.' New York. Pearce.C. 120 L. success on the merits would require reversal of the conviction. If a law is invalid as applied to the criminal defendant's conduct. 82 L. at 156. 717. See United States v. 115 S. 371. 376.S. where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy. 312 U. 3. 3315. at 376377. and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 711. and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. It is not enough that a litigant "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. 504 U.. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim. 717 (1880). Ed. 18 U. 25 L. *** There is no basis in precedent or principle to deny petitioner's standing to raise her claims. Individuals have "no standing to complain simply that their Government is violating the law. "An offence created by [an unconstitutional law]. Our decisions concerning criminal laws infected with discrimination are illustrative. Whatever the claim.S. 2408. see U. she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard [*2367] of the federal structure of our Government. 100. or the Due Process Clause. and action that exceeds the National Government's [***25] enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States.S. Ct. Wright. 104 S. Mellon. See Fallon. 113 Harv. Ct. the Federal Judiciary cannot hear the claim."). 61 S. a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particular. exceeds Congress' enumerated powers and violates the Tenth Amendment.S. 131 L. with whom Justice Breyer joins. 2072. 120 L. cl. see New York. 112 S.

333. 1792.S. [***29] Welsh v. § 2201).S. Ed. 2d 397 (1976) (law penalizing sale of beer to males but not females aged 18 to 20 could not be enforced against vendor). 190. In short. 2. City of Rockford. The validity of Bond's conviction depends upon whether the Constitution permits Congress to enact § 229. providing that powers not delegated to United States by Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. n. 2d 222 (1972). J. 72 L.S.. 2d 956. 452-455.S.05 (Matthew Bender) L Ed Digest. 70 L." for any reason. Parties § 2 L Ed Index.S. 276 U. REFERENCES U. Ct. 388.S. 33 [*2368] L. Parties Supreme Court's view as to validity of federal legislation under Tenth Amendment. 2294. United States. See also Grayned v. 72 L. Congress would cure the unequal treatment by extending rather than invalidating the criminal proscription). going forward. Supreme Court's view as to what is a "case or controversy" within the meaning of Article III of the Federal Constitution or an "actual controversy" within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U. Ed. 2d 783. Ct. 31 L. 92 S.S. 408 U.. 48 S. 107. 40 L. 600 (1928). cf. See Eisenstadt v. 50 L. Ed. 90 S. 438. Constitution. 361-362. 192. Ed. . Baird. 92 S. 26 L.C. 341.viction--even if the right to equal treatment resides in someone other than the defendant. Ct. is "no law at all.S. Ed. 451. Ct. Boren. concurring in result) (reversal required even if. 429 U.C. a law "beyond the power of Congress. Ct. 210. Her claim that it does not must be considered and decided on the merits. 398 U. Craig v. Requirements of Article III of Federal Constitution as affecting standing to challenge particular conduct as violative of federal law--Supreme Court cases. Ed." Nigro v. 1029. 97 S. 332. 104.02-4. Article III Federal Litigation Guide §§4. 405 U. 2d 308 (1970) (Harlan. 2d 941. Ed. 2d 349 (1972) (reversing conviction for distributing contraceptives because the law banning distribution [**284] violated the recipient's right to equal protection). Ed.S. United States.