Blogs

The Curious Case of a Jilted Wife's "Chemical Weapon"

By Lawrence Ebner posted 06-25-2014 04:32 PM

  

The Supreme Court’s June 2 opinion in Bond v. United States, No. 12-158, is a great example of  how a court can alter the plain meaning of a statute—in this case, the federal law that makes it a crime to use a “chemical weapon.”  The case involves “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.”  Bond, the revengeful wife, attempted to cause her husband’s pregnant paramour (her best friend) to develop an uncomfortable rash by repeatedly spreading commercially available chemicals on her car door, mailbox, and doorknob.  As Justice Scalia explained in his separate opinion, the government “made a federal case out of it” by prosecuting the wife under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, rather than leaving the matter to state law. But the Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, held that Congress could not possibly have intended that statute, which implements a treaty about chemical warfare and terrorism, to reach such a “purely local crime.”  The Court admonished that the federal government would interpret the broadly defined term “chemical weapon” in a way “that would sweep in everything from the detergent under the kitchen sink to the stain remover in the laundry room.”  


 According to Justice Scalia, who would have held the statute unconstitutional as applied to Bond, the majority’s “result-driven antitextualism befogs what is evident:” The “meaning of the Act is plain;” “it is clear beyond doubt that it covers what Bond did;” “we have no authority to amend it.”  Indeed, Justice Scalia asserted that “the Court shirk[ed] its job and perform[ed] Congress’s” by performing “gruesome surgery” on the statute based on “interpretative principles never before imagined that will bedevil our jurisprudence (and proliferate litigation) for years to come.”

What's the moral of this story about a mildly irritated thumb?  Watch out when a court (especially the Supreme Court) leaves its thumbprint on a statute's otherwise transparent text.   

0 comments
47 views

Permalink