Editing United States v. Lopez

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=U.S. Supreme Court
|citation=514 U.S. 549 (1995)
|date=April 26, 1995
|subject=Constitutional Law
|appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
|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.
|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.
|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.

* '''Kennedy (Concurring)''': Substantive 10th amendment argument (fixed line) Recent commerce cases like ''[[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.|Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.]]'', ''[[U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co.|Darby]]'', ''[[Wickard v. Filburn|Wickard]]'', and ''[[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.|Heart of Atlanta Motel]]'' are not overturned; they are still valid. Court still has authority and responsibility to review congressional attempts to alter federal balance. Federalism means there is a division of powers between state and national governments, "to assign political responsibility, not to obscure it." Each branch must remember that it has a "sworn obligation to preserve and protect the constitution in maintaining the federal balance." It is well established that education is a traditional concern of the states.

* '''Thomas (Concurring)''': Originalist interpretation of commerce, which was "trade" or "merchandise." The fact that Congress was given power in the constitution to regulate bankruptcy laws, coin money, or fix the standards of weights and measures means that the commerce clause was originally interpreted much more narrowly than today.

* '''Stevens (Dissenting)''': Education very important to future international and interstate commerce. Guns are article of commerce and articles that can restrain commerce. There is a national interest in eliminating the market for the possession of school-age kids.

* '''Souter (Dissenting)''': Courts must defer to "rationally based legislative judgments," which is an aspect of judicial restrain. If congress has "rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, out investigation is at an end." The argument is basically "what affects commerce directly v. what affects indirectly." The majority decision was a step in the wrong direction that portends the return to the "untenable position from which the Court extricated itself almost 60 years ago." The fact that school regulation is traditionally a State matter does not matter. Poor education has a strong effect on 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=Justice Kennedy directly cited [[The_Federalist_Papers#No._45.E2.80.9446:_Federal_encroachment|Federalists 46]] and 51 stating that the federal law in question infringed upon States' rights in (1) education and (2) crime control.
|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.
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=majority
|written_by=William H. Rehnquist
|joined_by=Sandra Day O'Connor*Antonin Scalia*Anthony M. Kennedy*Clarence Thomas
}}{{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=concurrence
|written_by=Anthony M. Kennedy
|joined_by=Sandra Day O'Connor
}}{{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=concurrence
|written_by=Clarence Thomas
}}{{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=dissent
|written_by=John Paul Stevens
}}{{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=dissent
|written_by=David H. Souter
}}{{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=dissent
|written_by=Stephen G. Breyer
|joined_by=John Paul Stevens*David H. Souter*Ruth Bader Ginsburg
}}
|links=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/#tab-opinion-1959689*https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260
}}