By Jonathan Stempel and Terry Baynes
Jan 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed
to hear a new appeal by a woman convicted under a federal law
intended to combat chemical weapons in a case where she admitted
trying to poison a former friend who had an affair with her
husband.
At the center of the case is a 1998 U.S. law banning the use
of chemical weapons other than for a "peaceful purpose."
That law grew out of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention,
an international agreement designed to keep rogue countries and
terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
Carol Anne Bond, a trained microbiologist who once worked at
the chemical company Rohm and Haas Co, admitted to trying to
poison her former best friend Myrlinda Haynes after learning
that Haynes, a single mother, became pregnant by Bond's husband.
The toxic chemicals were taken from Rohm & Haas, and lethal
compounds were sprinkled on Haynes' mailbox, car door handles
and house doorknob on several occasions between November 2006
and June 2007.
Such cases are normally handled by local prosecutors under
traditional criminal laws, but Bond was prosecuted under the
federal chemical weapons law.
The case could give the court a chance to revisit a 1920
precedent written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that gave
Congress broad authority to adopt laws implementing treaties.
It also presents an unusual clash between the desire to
enforce international treaty norms, including provisions
designed to thwart terrorism, and the 10th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which limits federal power.
Bond, a Pennsylvania resident, was sentenced to six years in
prison after entering a guilty plea that gave her a right to
appeal the use of that law in her case. Bond said its use
invaded the powers reserved to U.S. states under the 10th
Amendment.
In 2011, the Supreme Court said Bond had standing to fight
her conviction, without deciding the merits, and sent the case
to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.
CACHE IN EACH CUPBOARD
In May, the 3rd Circuit upheld the conviction, despite
finding that the law "turns each kitchen cupboard and cleaning
cabinet in America into a potential chemical weapons cache."
The 3rd Circuit said the 1920 Supreme Court precedent,
Missouri v. Holland, limited its review to whether the federal
law was rationally related to a valid treaty.
"The arguable consequence of Holland is that treaties and
associated legislation are simply not subject to Tenth Amendment
scrutiny, no matter how far into the realm of states' rights the
president and Congress may choose to venture," it found.
In her latest Supreme Court appeal, Bond, represented by
former Solicitor General Paul Clement, claimed that the federal
government overreached in trying to criminalize "purely local
conduct" by implementing the chemical weapons treaty.
The U.S. government opposed the appeal, saying Congress had
authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause and Necessary
and Proper Clause to enact the 1998 law.
It also said Bond could not escape the law "because her
actions were anything but peaceful."
The court could hear the appeal in April, and if it does
would likely issue a decision by the end of June.
The case is Bond v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-158.
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook