How is a court to determine whether Congress has clearly indicated that a federal statute should reach criminal conduct that is the traditional responsibility of the states?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), the Court held that, “[b]ecause our constitutional structure leaves local criminal activity primarily to the States, we have generally declined to read federal law as intruding on that responsibility, unless Congress has clearly indicated that the law should have such reach.” Applying that standard, Bond held that 18 U.S.C. § 229—a statute implementing an international chemical weapons conviction—did not apply to the purely local conduct at issue in the case. This case involves a materially identical statute: 18 U.S.C. § 175. It implements an international convention on biological weapons. This case also involves similarly local conduct. In early April 2020, a few weeks after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Christopher Perez posted two messages on Facebook falsely claiming that he had paid someone to lick groceries at two grocery stores in San Antonio. For that, he was convicted of committing a bioweapons hoax under 18 U.S.C. §§ 175(a) and 1038(a)(1). The issue presented is: How is a court to determine whether Congress has clearly indicated that a federal statute should reach criminal conduct that is the traditional responsibility of the states? ii No. In the Supreme Court of the United States CHRISTOPHER CHARLES PEREZ, PETITIONER, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Christopher Charles Perez asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the opinion and judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 3, 2022.