The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared sympathetic to a microbiologist’s argument that she was unfairly prosecuted under a federal law that implements the Chemical Weapons Convention after she tried to poison a romantic rival, according to reports.
The nation’s top justices weighed the appeal of 42-year old Carol Ann Bond, who in 2008 pled guilty to trying to poison her husband’s pregnant lover, Myrlina Haynes, with a chemical compound. Bond was charged in federal court with violating the 1998 Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, the law the implemented the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention in the United States. She was sentenced to six years in prison and fought that conviction, arguing federal prosecutors infringed upon state authority by filing charges against her under a law created to deter the use of chemical weapons by rogue nations and terrorists.
Most of the justices appeared “downright angry” with the federal government’s use of an international treaty to prosecute a woman in a domestic spat, USA Today reported. They questioned if the Chemical Weapons Convention and the law Congress passed implementing it were intended to reach to such domestic crimes or remain only applicable to wartime matters. At its core, the case is about whether Congress can use its power to implement treaties on local matters not normally applicable to federal law, according to Bloomberg.
It “seems unimaginable that you would bring this prosecution,” Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, according to the Associated Press.
Bond’s attorney, former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement, referred to his client’s crime consisted of “garden-variety assaults with chemicals.”
Verrilli, though, argued on behalf of President Obama’s administration that if its treaty power were altered, U.S. initiatives related to chemical weapons and nuclear nonproliferation could be hampered.
“There needs to be a comprehensive ban,” Verrilli reportedly argued before the high court. “You can’t be drawing these types of lines.”
Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, maintained that the Chemical Weapons Convention and congressional implementation of the treaty were sound and therefore paramount, USA Today reported. If they were not, judges would “take the place of treaty-makers,” she reportedly said.
What We're Following See More »
"Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has appointed a veteran legal insider with strong personal ties to the Obama administration to serve as his special adviser focused exclusively on fixing the Washington region’s troubled Metro system. Kathryn Thomson, who was expected to leave her job as the Department of Transportation’s top lawyer, instead will stay on as Foxx’s special adviser on Metro oversight." She'll start this week.
"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that prosecutors in Georgia violated the Constitution by striking every black prospective juror in a death penalty case against a black defendant. The vote was 7 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. The case, Foster v. Chatman, No. 14-8349, arose from the 1987 trial of Timothy T. Foster, an African-American facing the death penalty for killing Queen Madge White, an elderly white woman, when he was 18."
A report from House Democrats charges that NFL officials retracted funding for a $16 million NIH study on head injuries after repeated unsuccessful attempts to direct the money away from a Boston University researcher and instead to scientists who might be more favorable to the league. Democrats have been trying to go after the NFL over its handling of concussion science, although the sport's popularity and increased lobbying presence has made that difficult. The new revelations about meddling in the NIH study should offer more ammo.
"A unanimous Supreme Court has dismissed a Republican appeal over congressional districts in Virginia. The justices on Monday left in place a decision by a lower court that said Virginia illegally packed black voters into one district to make adjacent districts safer for Republican incumbents." The Court said the Republican elected officials who challenged the decision did not have standing to do so.