18 U.S.C. § 175
Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons
(a)In General.—Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, or attempts, threatens, or conspires to do the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.(b)Additional Offense.—Whoever knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. In this subsection, the terms “biological agent” and “toxin” do not encompass any biological agent or toxin that is in its naturally occurring environment, if the biological agent or toxin has not been cultivated, collected, or otherwise extracted from its natural source.(c)Definition.—For purposes of this section, the term “for use as a weapon” includes the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for other than prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes.(Added Pub. L. 101–298, § 3(a), May 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 201; amended Pub. L. 104–132, title V, § 511(b)(1), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 817(1), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 385; Pub. L. 107–188, title II, § 231(c)(1), June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 661.)Editorial NotesAmendments2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–188 substituted “protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes” for “protective bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes”.
2001—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–56, § 817(1)(C), added subsec. (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).
Pub. L. 107–56, § 817(1)(A), substituted “includes” for “does not include” and inserted “other than” after “delivery system for” and “bona fide research” after “protective”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–56, § 817(1)(B), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c).
1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132 inserted “or attempts, threatens, or conspires to do the same,” before “shall be fined under this title”.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort TitlePub. L. 101–298, § 1, May 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 201, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and amending section 2516 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989’.”
Purpose and IntentPub. L. 101–298, § 2, May 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 201, provided that:“(a)Purpose.—The purpose of this Act [see Short Title note above] is to—“(1) implement the Biological Weapons Convention, an international agreement unanimously ratified by the United States Senate in 1974 and signed by more than 100 other nations, including the Soviet Union; and“(2) protect the United States against the threat of biological terrorism.“(b)Intent of Act.—Nothing in this Act is intended to restrain or restrict peaceful scientific research or development.”
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Thomas C. Leahy (1999)
ca7 · cites it 19×
“Thomas Leahy pleaded guilty to possession of a toxin for use as a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 175 (a) and was sentenced pursuant to the 1997 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Sentencing Guidelines” or “U.”
United States v. Le (2018)
ca2 · cites it 8×
“201 (1990) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 175 - 178 (2002) ); (2) using a false name to conduct the aforementioned unlawful activity by means of the United States Postal Service in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Jeff Levenderis (2015)
ca6 · cites it 9×
“The federal government prosecuted Levenderis for possessing a biological toxin for use as a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 175 (a). On appeal, Levenderis argues that, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bond v.”
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
scotus · cites it 2×
“…and a unified purpose to build a stable national economy"). [36] See 16 U. S. C. § 668 (a) (bald and golden eagles); 18 U. S. C. § 175 (a) (biological weapons); § 831(a) (nuclear material); § 842(n)(1) (certain plastic explosives); § 2342(a) (contraband cigarettes). [37] We…”
United States v. Randy Graham (2001)
ca6 · cites it 3×
“In so doing the district court rejected the government’s recommendation that it looked to § 2K2.”
United States v. Kenneth Olsen (2013)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“OPINION FRIEDMAN, Senior District Judge: Kenneth Olsen was convicted in 2003 of knowingly possessing a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 175 . This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.”
United States v. Martinelli (2005)
armfor · cites it 2×
“Congress has clearly expressed its intent in other criminal statutes as well: the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 provides, “There is extraterritorial federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States,”…”
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade (2004)
ca9
“§§ 32 , 1993, 2332f, 2332b; the development, stockpiling, or use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, 18 U.S.C. §§ 175 , 229, 831, 2232a; the commission of genocide, 18 U.”
N-A-M (2007)
bia
“, 18 U.S.C. § 175 (2000 & Supp. IV 2004) (relating to biological weapons); 18 U.”
United States v. Kenneth Olsen (2013)
ca9 · cites it 2×
“Chief Judge KOZINSKI, with whom Judges PREGERSON, REINHARDT, THOMAS and WATFORD join, dissenting from the order denying the petition for rehearing en banc: There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land. Only judges can put a stop to it.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.