Bond v. United States presented the deep constitutional question of whether a treaty can increase the legislative power of Congress. Unfortunately, a majority of the Court managed to sidestep the constitutional issue by dodgy statutory interpretation. But the other three Justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—all wrote important concurrences in the judgment, grappling with the constitutional issues presented. In particular, Justice Scalia’s opinion (joined by Justice Thomas), is a masterpiece, eloquently demonstrating that Missouri v. Holland is wrong and should be overruled: a treaty cannot increase the legislative power of Congress.
Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 285-306 (2014)
Scholarly Commons Citation
Rosenkranz, Nicholas Quinn, "Bond v. United States: Concurring in the Judgment" (2014). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Paper 1378.