Poisoning case tests chemical weapons law

WASHINGTON -- What began as attempted revenge for marital infidelity has turned into a Supreme Court showdown over the power of the federal government.

The high court will hear arguments Tuesday in the case of Carol Anne Bond, a microbiologist who tried to poison her husband's lover -- and was prosecuted under a U.S. law enacted to implement a chemical weapons treaty. Bond says her crime is a local one that never should have involved federal prosecutors.

"The case is hugely important because it's about a fundamental principle of constitutional law, which is limited federal power," said Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Georgetown University Law Center professor.

Bond, of Pennsylvania, is challenging a 1920 high court ruling that said Congress can use its constitutional power to implement treaties as a mechanism to regulate local conduct.

The Obama administration, backed by the chemical industry, defends the prosecution and the 1920 ruling. The administration says Bond's argument would undermine the president's ability to strike agreements with other countries and cut against a centuries-old understanding of the Constitution's treaty power.

Bond was thrilled when she learned in 2006 that her closest friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant. That excitement turned to rage when Bond discovered that her husband, Clifford Bond, was the father.

Bond, now 42, tried to poison Haynes 24 times over the next several months by spreading chemicals on her doorknob, car door handles and mailbox. Although Haynes usually noticed the substances, on one occasion she suffered a chemical burn on her thumb. Postal inspectors eventually installed surveillance cameras and identified Bond as the perpetrator.

Federal prosecutors charged her with violating the 1998 Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, a law that carries out a 1997 treaty designed in part to protect against the use of chemicals by terrorists.

Bond pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 6 years in prison, while reserving her right to appeal. Had she been prosecuted under state law for assault, she would have served no more than 2 years and 1 month, according to Paul Clement, the lawyer who will be arguing on her behalf. She was released from prison last year.