United States v. Lopez

United States v. Lopez Commerce Clause

Before we get into the details of the case, let's talk about the Commerce Clause.

The issue of gun control was traditionally viewed as a reserved power, which is a power that only the state government has. The Constitution clarifies a list of powers (called enumerated powers) that Congress has. These include things like coining money, declaring war, etc. (see Enumerated and Implied Powers for more information!).

The 10th Amendment says that any powers not given to Congress would be reserved for the state governments.

However, the Constitution also allows a lot of wiggle room for the federal government under the Necessary and Proper Clause (also called the Elastic Clause). This provision is where we find the implied powers. The Necessary and Proper Clause says that Congress has the authority to pass anything "necessary and proper" that they need in order to carry out the rest of the list.

The Constitution also includes something called the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause often work hand in hand when the federal government is trying to regulate something that isn't specified in the Constitution. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to pass laws related to commerce with foreign nations and among the states.

Lastly, the Supremacy Clause clarified that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," meaning that federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Federalism vs. Antifederalism in the Constitution

Federalism was a major debate when the delegates at the Constitutional Convention met in 1787. The states were used to having a lot of authority, and they didn't want a central authority to come in and tell them how to run their own state. But they knew some sort of central government was needed.

Before the Constitution, the newly independent country was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which created a very weak central government. The Articles of Confederation had a lot of problems, especially around managing the country's debts from the war and regulating interstate commerce.

Many antifederalists were afraid that Congress could take the Commerce Clause too far and use it to justify practically whatever they wanted, while federalists were adamant that it was necessary. Without the power to regulate commerce, interstate trade and travel would devolve into chaos, just like it had under the Articles.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

McCulloch v. Maryland was the first time that the federal government's authority was tested. The case was between a bank teller for the newly created national bank and the state of Maryland. The states felt threatened by the national bank and tried to tax them out of existence, arguing that creating a national bank was outside of the federal government's authority. When the case went to the Supreme Court, the justices ruled in favor of the federal government. They said that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave the federal government the power create a national bank.

A series of other cases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries (Gonzalez v. Raich, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Gibbons v. Ogden, etc.) also saw the Supreme Court ruling in the federal government's favor.

United States v. Lopez Summary

The federal government's 150-year winning streak came to a close with the United States v. Lopez case.

Gun-Free Schools Act

Congress passed the Gun-Free School Act of 1990 citing their authority under the Commerce Clause. The law prohibited bringing a firearm onto a school campus in all 50 states.

How did the Lopez case get to the Supreme Court?

When Alfonso Lopez brought a gun onto school property, he was arrested because of a Texas law prohibiting guns on school property. However, because there was also a federal law in place, the state dropped the charges and the federal government ended up pressing charges.

Lopez was initially sentenced to six months in prison. His lawyers appealed the case, saying that the federal government didn't have the authority to make the Gun-Free School Zone Act in the first place. They argued that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate gun control and that only states had that power. Eventually, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Gun-Free School Zone Act was invalid, prompting a review by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Building of the United States. Source: Marielam1, CC-BY-SA-4.0, Wikimedia Commons

United States v. Lopez Ruling

On April 26, 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gun-Free Zone Act did violate the Constitution.

Government Arguments

Lawyers for the United States said that the act is valid because of the Commerce Clause. They argued that guns in schools lead to more violence, which then impacts commerce in two ways:

1. It makes people scared to travel through the state, reducing commerce.
2. It negatively impacts students' learning, which impacts commerce in the future.

Majority Opinion

Out of the nine Supreme Court judges, 5 ruled in the majority opinion, making it a tight case that ultimately ruled against the federal government. They argued that regulating gun control was reserved for the states and that the Commerce Clause did not provide the government with enough authority to enact the Gun-Free Zone Act.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion for the decision. Source: Wikimedia Commons PD-US-DOJ

Dissenting Opinion

Four out of the five judges dissented with the ruling. They looked at the cumulative effect of gun violence and felt that a law preventing such actions would be appropriate under the Commerce Clause. They argued that the effect of gun violence rose to a substantial level that would warrant the federal government stepping in to mitigate its effect on interstate commerce.

United States v. Lopez Outcome

As a result of the ruling, the Gun-Free School Zone Act was struck down. After the ruling, the federal government was able to pass a new version of the law that required proof for each case that it impacted interstate commerce.

The decision was the first time since 1937 that the Supreme Court had ruled against the federal government's expansion of power using the Commerce Clause.