United States v.

Lopez (1995)
CASE BACKGROUND (Include case facts, relevant events, legislation or rulings):

In 1990 congress passed a law, Gun Free School Zone Act, that prohibited people from carrying firearms on
school property. A 12th grader named Alfonso Lopez Jr. was convicted under this law and appealed his
conviction stating congress did not have the authority to pass the gun law in the first place. Even though The
Fifth Circuit of the U.S. court of appeals ruled with Lopez and dismissed the charges, the U.S. government
brought it to the supreme court.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION/S (Must include a law or Constitutional text):

Does the 1990 gun free school zone act exceed the powers of the congress as outlined in Article I, section 8;
therefore making it unconstitutional?

ARGUMENTS:
one bringing appeal (want court to rule in their favor) Right is defendant
Petitioner (U.S.) Respondent (Lopez)
Congress had authority to pass the law under the The GFSZA is not related to interstate commerce. The
Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court, in earlier cases Constitution says that Congress can only pass certain
such as Wickard and Heart of Atlanta Motel, ruled that types of laws, including laws that regulate “interstate
Congress can regulate things that are not by themselves commerce.” Commerce means commercial activities, and
interstate commerce if, when accumulated together, they this law is not related to any commercial activities.
affect interstate commerce.
The Gun Free Schools Zone Act is not like the law issued
Although possession of a gun in a school zone is not a in Wickard, which was about buying and selling crops,
direct form of interstate commerce, it can be classified as nor is it like the laws in Heart of Atlanta Motel, which
commerce because the costs associated with violent were about customers paying for hotel rooms. Those are
crime are substantial and affect many people across the both economic activities.
country.
Mere possession of a gun at or near a school is not a
The presence of guns near schools also negatively affects form of commerce and does not involve more than one
students’ ability to learn, which will impede their future state.
success, and thus affect the economy of the nation.
If mere possession of an object were classified as
Insurance costs for activities related to gun violence are commerce, then anything could be classified as
high and gun violence at schools interferes with the commerce. This would give Congress virtually unlimited
willingness of people to travel to some parts of the powers; there would be no limits to the reach of the
country. Both of these activities, insurance and travel, national government in a federal system.
are forms of commerce.
The Constitution limits Congress’s power to make laws
The GFSZA does not encroach on state authority as most for a reason. Some things are best left to the states. If
states had their own laws prohibiting possession of guns Congress could call possession of a gun “interstate
on school property. Federal regulation in this case is commerce,” then Congress would be allowed to regulate
concurrent with state regulation and does not displace it. anything and the states will have less authority to set
their own laws.
Different communities have different needs and
standards. It should be up to states to decide whether
people may carry guns near schools.
 DECISION
Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion
Favor of Lopez
Author: Chief Justice Rehnquist Author: Justice Brewer, Souter,
Key Claim(s): Key Claim(s):

Law exceeded congress authority under commerce law Right to regulate local activities.
Crime does not affect commerce in a substantial way Court does not need to debate whether carrying a gun is
(Does not have anything to do with economy) considered commerce.
National government with limited delegated powers Safeguarding the education system benefits the economy

Reasoning used to justify the opinion: Reasoning used to justify the opinion:

The supreme court said that the commerce clause deals
only with economic activities that affect interstate
commerce, and since carrying a gun in a school zone is
not economic the law would be unconstitutional. By
allowing the acceptance of the government's argument,
we could be allowing the claim that anything is an
economic activity, thus creating unlimited congressional
power, and also contradicting the principle of limited
government.
The commerce clause includes the right to regulate local
activities that as long as they significantly affect
interstate commerce. Determine if congress had a
rational basis for claiming that carrying a gun on school
property would be considered commerce. Furthermore
the courts should look at congress’s informed judgement
about the potential economic effects and determine
whether there is a rational basis.

PRECEDENT/ IMPLICATIONS: Why was this case so important? (in your own words, the better)

One reason this case is significant is because it ruled that the gun law was unconstitutional and marked the first time in
half a century that the courts held Congress had exceeded their power under the commerce clause. The act that Lopez
had committed was a criminal statute and had nothing to do with interstate commerce or any sort of economic activities.