 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Editing United States v. Lopez
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit | |appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit | ||
|case_treatment=No | |||
|overturned= | |||
|partially_overturned= | |||
|reaffirmed= | |||
|questioned= | |||
|criticized= | |||
|distinguished= | |||
|cited= | |||
|followed= | |||
|related= | |||
|facts=Lopez, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school. | |facts=Lopez, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school. | ||
|procedural_history=Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. He challenged the act as beyond the scope of congressional power under the commerce clause. | |procedural_history=Lopez was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. He challenged the act as beyond the scope of congressional power under the commerce clause. | ||
|issues=Was it within Congress' power to legislate the Act? Does the area of regulation fall within activities having a substantial relation to | |issues=Was it within Congress' power to legislate the Act? Does the area of regulation fall within activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce? | ||
|arguments=U.S. argues that possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the national economy in 2 ways: 1) increase of insurance costs throughout the country; 2) reduction of travel to the area in which the violent crime occurred. Also, guns could handicap the educational process, which will reduce citizen productivity, which will have an adverse effect to the national economy. Therefore, Congress could have rationally concluded that the act affects interstate commerce. | |arguments=U.S. argues that possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the national economy in 2 ways: 1) increase of insurance costs throughout the country; 2) reduction of travel to the area in which the violent crime occurred. Also, guns could handicap the educational process, which will reduce citizen productivity, which will have an adverse effect to the national economy. Therefore, Congress could have rationally concluded that the act affects interstate commerce. | ||
|holding=* '''Renquist (Majority)''': Statute has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic enterprise. There are no congressional findings that support that gun possession at a school will have any effect on interstate commerce. If the reduction of citizen productivity is enough to empower Congress, where does it stop? (Family law, etc. could be involved by the same reasoning). Possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. | |holding=* '''Renquist (Majority)''': Statute has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic enterprise. There are no congressional findings that support that gun possession at a school will have any effect on interstate commerce. If the reduction of citizen productivity is enough to empower Congress, where does it stop? (Family law, etc. could be involved by the same reasoning). Possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 30: | ||
* '''Breyer (Dissenting)''': Statute falls well within the scope of commerce. 3 basic principles of Commerce Clause interpretation. 1) Commerce regulation includes power to regulate local activities insofar as they significantly affect interstate commerce. 2) Court cannot consider the effect of the individual act, but the aggregate effect of all similar instances. 3) Constitution requires court to judge the connection between regulated activity and interstate commerce indirectly. Must give leeway to Congress in determining the existence of a significant factual connection. And, congress could find that there is such a connection. Reports show that guns possession negatively affects students. Poor education negatively affects international commerce. | * '''Breyer (Dissenting)''': Statute falls well within the scope of commerce. 3 basic principles of Commerce Clause interpretation. 1) Commerce regulation includes power to regulate local activities insofar as they significantly affect interstate commerce. 2) Court cannot consider the effect of the individual act, but the aggregate effect of all similar instances. 3) Constitution requires court to judge the connection between regulated activity and interstate commerce indirectly. Must give leeway to Congress in determining the existence of a significant factual connection. And, congress could find that there is such a connection. Reports show that guns possession negatively affects students. Poor education negatively affects international commerce. | ||
|reasons= | |judgment= | ||
|reasons= | |||
|rule= | |||
|comments=''[[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.|Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.]]'', ''[[U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co.|Darby]]'', and ''[[Wickard v. Filburn|Wickard]]'' have increased the scope which the commerce clause covers. There are three identified categories of activity that congress may regulate under its commerce power. First, channels of interstate commerce (''[[United States v. Darby Lumber Co.|Darby]]'', ''[[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.|Heart of Atlanta Motel]]''). Second, instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Third, activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (''[[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.|Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.]]''), i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The only possibility for this case is the third category. | |comments=''[[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.|Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.]]'', ''[[U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co.|Darby]]'', and ''[[Wickard v. Filburn|Wickard]]'' have increased the scope which the commerce clause covers. There are three identified categories of activity that congress may regulate under its commerce power. First, channels of interstate commerce (''[[United States v. Darby Lumber Co.|Darby]]'', ''[[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.|Heart of Atlanta Motel]]''). Second, instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Third, activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (''[[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.|Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.]]''), i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The only possibility for this case is the third category. | ||
|links=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/#tab-opinion-1959689*https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260 | |||
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | |Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=majority | |opinion_type=majority | ||
| Line 33: | Line 46: | ||
|opinion_type=concurrence | |opinion_type=concurrence | ||
|written_by=Clarence Thomas | |written_by=Clarence Thomas | ||
|joined_by= | |||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=dissent | |opinion_type=dissent | ||
|written_by=John Paul Stevens | |written_by=John Paul Stevens | ||
|joined_by= | |||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=dissent | |opinion_type=dissent | ||
|written_by=David H. Souter | |written_by=David H. Souter | ||
|joined_by= | |||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=dissent | |opinion_type=dissent | ||
|written_by= | |written_by=BREYER, J | ||
|joined_by=John Paul Stevens*David H. Souter*Ruth Bader Ginsburg | |joined_by=John Paul Stevens*David H. Souter*Ruth Bader Ginsburg | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
