Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶119
Common sense not only fails to explain many of our major questions cases. It doesn't explain even some of the cases Justice Barrett has held up as examples of commonsense cases. In Bond v. United States, 572 U. S. 844 (2014), for example, the Court confronted a statute that defined “chemical weapon” to include “ `any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.' ” Id., at 851; see also Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 512–513 (Barrett, J., concurring) (discussing Bond). Despite that broad definition, the Court held that “an arsenic-based compound” didn't ft the bill. Bond, 572 U. S., at 852, 866. To reach that result, we did not use common sense alone. How could we have? It hardly goes without saying that arsenic doesn't qualify as a “chemical” which can cause “ `permanent harm to humans or…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.