[Lurking Libertarian]

I'm glad Bond has standing to sue, but I'll withhold praise for the court until I see that she actually wins the case against the Feds on 10th amendment grounds. Or anyone, for that matter.

She does not have standing to sue. The Court's opinion made clear that it was NOT changing precedent on who has standing to sue. The issue here is that Ms. Bond didn't sue; she was prosecuted for a crime. And the Court held that standing applies to plaintiffs, not defendants; if the plaintiff (here, the U.S. Government) has standing to sue, the standing doctrine doesn't limit the defenses the defendant can raise.

[green iguana]

Sorry, my mistake. She has standing to bring a defense based on 10th Amendment grounds. Again, this is all well and fine, but I'll still withhold judgment until I see this or another case based on a usurpation of rights under the 10th Amendment succeed.