Bond v. United States (09-1227)

argument 09-1227

Bond v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why does the petitioner have standing to challenge the statute that deprives her liberty?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in num number zero nine twelve twenty seven, Bond versus United States. Mr Clement.

Paul D. Clement 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The standing of petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute under which her liberty is being deprived should not be open to serious question. She clearly satisfies this court's modern tripartite test for standing. Indeed, it is hard to imagine an injury more particularised or concrete than six years in federal prison. And the liberty interest she seeks to vindicate is her own, not some third party's. In many ways I think standing is a bit of a misnomer here. Petitioner is not a plaintiff who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court. She's a defendant who's been hailed into court by a federal prosecutor. There's no logical reason she should not be able to mount a constitutional attack.

Paul D. Clement 0:55

on the statute that is the basis for the prosecution.

Anthony M. Kennedy 0:58

Do our uh any of our opinions talk about the standing of a defendant? I can't think of one at the moment.

Paul D. Clement 1:05

Well, I I think it was in the habeas context, but the Spencer decision does talk about how when you have a criminal defendant or somebody who's serving a sentence, their standing to challenge the conviction is essentially one of the easiest standing cases you can imagine. And I think in a sense, the the same principles would apply here, but as I say, I think standing is normally something you think about as applying to the plaintiff who's invoking the jurisdiction of the court. So what's really At issue here is something almost more of a bar on somebody's ability to make an argument that would vindicate their liberty. And I see no reason why, in logic, that should be the case. Now the Court of Appeals essentially didn't apply ordinary.

Unknown 1:48

As a defendant. for which you have no standing. You're saying there's no argument you can make as a defendant for which you have

Paul D. Clement 1:55

no standing? Well I'm not sure you'd call it normal standing principles, Your Honor. There's certainly arguments you could make that you h would have no business having anything to do with your case. There's arguments you could make that would have nothing to do with that would be non justical.

Unknown 2:08

Suppose I raise an an establishment clause uh uh objection. uh i i in in a in a matter that uh that does not involve uh legislation. And which our recent opinions say therefore d d d does not violate the establishment clause.

Paul D. Clement 2:22

Well I I guess I'd have to know why you were a defendant in that case and how it had anything to do with the price of tea in that particular case.

Unknown 2:30

But No, you wouldn't. All y all you would have to know is that the Th the claim is based upon a statute uh is not based upon a statute. And that our establishment clause jurisprudence says if it's not based upon the statute, it doesn't violate the establishment clause. With respect

Paul D. Clement 2:47

I don't think that follows. It's I mean I I think if if if if the federal executive tried to imprison you based on your religion You could take issue with that and say that is an establishment clause violation. The problem in your recent case, the Hine case, I could say it's a free

Unknown 3:01

exercise clause violation. I don't think you need the establishment clause for that.

Paul D. Clement 3:04

Well, if they said, Well, we're hereby establishing a religion and you're not part of our religion and we're therefore imprisoning you, I would think you could bring that claim. But in all events Bringing it back to the case before you, I think there's no reason to think that ordinary principles of standing wouldn't give my client every ability to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which she's being held.

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:28

Are you making any claims other than that Congress was acting outside its enumerated powers in enacting this statute? Are there any peculiarly tenth Amendment claims that you're making? In other words, you admit that Congress is acting within its enumerated powers and yet the action violates the Tenth Amendment. Are you making any claims of that sort, or are all your claims