This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner, petitioner asserts she has standing under the Court's modern tripartite test.
According to Respondent, the United States contends that the Third Circuit misread precedent and erred in holding that the claim is barred by the Tenth Amendment.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, a key issue is whether the petitioner has standing to bring the constitutional challenge.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Carol Anne Bond)
Petitioner argues she has standing under the modern tripartite test.
United States (Respondent)
According to Respondent, the United States argues the Third Circuit misread Tennessee Electric v. TVA and erred in concluding the claim is barred by the Tenth Amendment.
Amicus Curiae (Stephen R. McAllister)
According to Mr. McAllister, amicus argues that prudential third‑party standing requires alignment of interests, which is lacking here.
According to Mr. McAllister, amicus notes that the petitioner's interests are directly contrary to Pennsylvania's interests.
According to Mr. McAllister, amicus states that the petitioner's claim must be authorized by Article I, Section 8, the first seventeen clauses.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the case: “We will hear argument first this morning in No. 09‑1227, Bond v. United States.”
Justice Kennedy asked whether any opinions discuss the standing of the defendant.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia raised a hypothetical Establishment Clause objection unrelated to legislation.
Justice Alito questioned whether a Tenth Amendment claim could be framed as a State prerogative rather than an individual right.
Justice Kagan asked whether the petitioner was making a commandeering claim.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer referenced a single sentence in the TVA case concerning congressional authority.
Justice Sotomayor asked what specific prudential considerations bar the petitioner's standing.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor inquired whether Pennsylvania would be upset that the Federal Government intervened.
Justice Scalia questioned why the petitioner lacks standing to make the claim.
Justice Breyer asked what comparable claim exists in this case.
Justice Sotomayor sought clarification on whether the claim is a pure Tenth Amendment challenge.
- [1] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 5
- [4] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 10
- [5] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 11
- [6] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 14
- [7] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 36
- [8] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 37
- [9] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 38
- [10] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 39
- [11] 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdf, p. 41
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 48014d1e6b041e7f918a-r1-43a54698a222bb57.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.