U.S. vs. Lopez, 1995

Background

1990 Gun-Free Zones Act of 1990 made it a federal offense ‘for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone.’

March 10, 1992, a senior student at Edison Highschool in San Antonio TX arrived carrying a concealed .38 caliber handgun and five bullets. Authorities approached him and he admitted he was carrying a weapon. He was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged him with violating the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act of 1990.

A Federal grand jury charged him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone, in violation of 922(q). He dismissed the charge (indictment) on the ground that ‘is unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools.’ The District Court denied the motion, concluding that it ‘is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ well-defined poer to regulate foiw in and affecting commerce, and the ‘business’ of elementary, middle, and high schools . . . affects interstate commerce.’ He waived his right to a jury trial. The District Court conducted the bench trial and found him guilty of violating and sentenced him to six months in prison and two years supervised release.

He challenged his conviction by claiming that they exceeded Congress’ power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction.

Overview of federalism

The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (James Madison): ‘the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution tot he federal governments are numerous and indefinite.’ The mandated division of authority ‘was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.’ Just as the separation of branches in the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any branch, a healthy balance of power between state and federal government will reduce risk of tyranny and abuse of power.

On Supreme Court precedent regarding what the Commerce Clause does give Congress the power to regulate

Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. The authority of Congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained and is no longer open to question.

Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.

Upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles used in intrastate commerce.

Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce; those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

It is not clear whether an activity must ‘affect’ or ‘substantially affect’ interstate commerce in order for Congress’ power to regulate it. A proper test is required in order to determine if the regulated activity ‘substantially affects’ interstate commerce.

On the act’s lack of effect on commerce

The Gun Free School Zone Act is a criminal law that has nothing to do with commerce or any other sort of economic enterprise. It is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity. It can’t be that it affects interstate commerce.

The Governments argues that under its costs of crime reasoning, the Congress should regulate violent crime AND all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how they relate to interstate commerce. Under the ‘national productivity’ reasoning, Congress should regulate any activity found related to economic productivity of their citizens like family law (marriage, divorce, custody). It is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power even in places where States have been sovereign.

On protecting state powers

If we keep trying to resolve the disagreement we would have to keep inferring