United States v Lopez

In the Supreme Court

The US v Lopez case was heard in November, 1994 and decided in April, 1995 under Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

The United States Government's main argument against Lopez consisted of several parts:

-the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to violent crime

-this violent crime would cause insurance costs to raise significantly all over the country

-presence of firearms in schools would cause safety concerns, inhibiting education which could in turn weaken the economy due to the strong ties between education and financial stability

Decision

In a controversial 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. This meant that Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause were limited, and that these powers did not extend to the regulation of the carrying of handguns. In addition, the Supreme Court did not recognize any massive affect on the economy that the carrying of these handguns may have.

The Case

Dissenting Opinion

There were four justices that disagreed with the Court's ruling: Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens. Three of which wrote dissenting opinions. The most important of which was Breyers' opinion.

Breyers' opinion (the principal dissenting opinion) claims that:

1- the Commerce Clause included the power to regulate local activities as long as they "slightly affect[ed]" interstate commerce

2-In considering a question the court should not look just at the case at hand, but similar acts

3- The court should not have determined if it was an activity that significantly affected interstate commerce, but should have instead considered whether their was "rational basis" for Congress concluding that

Opinion of the Court

Written by John Rehnquist, stated that there were three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause. These were:

-the channels of interstate commerce

-the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the persons or things in interstate commerce

- activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

Background

Essentially:the court concluded that carrying handguns did not relate to any sort of economic enterprise or commercial activity

Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, saying the act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." The court that first tried the case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, ruled against Lopez, stating that it was within congressional powers to regulate activites affecting commerce, and that "the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools affects commerce."

Getting to the Supreme Court

On March 10th, 1992, Alfonzo Lopez brought a concealed .38 caliber revolver and five cartridges to his school in San Antonio, Texas. When Lopez was stopped by school authorities he admitted to carrying a weapon, but stated that he brought it to school to deliver it to another student in exchange for $40. Lopez was later charged for firearm possession on school grounds. Texas then dismissed the charges because federal agents charged Lopez with violating the federal statue, the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990.

After Lopez was tried and convicted, he appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Lopez's case was heard and the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that Congress' actions were not covered by the Commerce Clause, reversing his conviction.

The United States Government then filed a petition for certiorari, so that the Supreme Court could hear the case.

Historical Significance

US v Lopez raised several questions that are still debated today, and lead to further legislation on firearm possession near schools. The Federal Gun-Free Schools Act was revised in 1995 to work around the problems it had that allowed it to be questioned in US v Lopez.

While Congress may not have the power to regulate carrying of firearms under the Commerce Clause, gun control legislation has become a hot button issue that we will be hearing about for years to come.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

This law prohibits individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm in an area that the individual knows (or has reason to believe) is a "school zone"*.

*These school zones are defined by Title 18 of the United States Code