Petitioner
United States
Respondent
Alfonso Lopez, Jr.
Petitioner's Claim
That it was left to Congress to decide what seriously affects interstate commerce and Congress found the Gun-Free School Zone Act constitutional under theCommerce Clause.
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 April 1995
Decision
The Court stated that Congress had overstepped the bounds of the Commerce Clause; the act was deemed unconstitutional.
Significance
The decision dealt a large blow to Congress' attempts to cut down on school--related violence and improve the safety ratings of America's schools. However, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was able to fillin some of the gaps left open by the striking down of the Gun-Free School Zone Act.
Alfonso Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, brought a concealed handgunand five rounds of ammunition into his high school in San Antonio, Texas. Hisweapon was discovered and he was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed afterhe was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, a federal law which forbids a person to possess a firearm in a place that he or sheknows is a school zone. Lopez moved to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional and Congress did not have the power tolegislate with respect to public schools. The district court denied this motion and Lopez was found guilty and was sentenced to six months imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and a $50.00 fine.
Court of Appeals Ruling
Lopez appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, again onthe grounds that Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Attorneys for the United States government contended thatthe law was an appropriate use of power under the interstate Commerce Clause. The circuit court reversed the district court's decision and agreed with Lopez that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was invalid because it was beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court found the federal law unconstitutional.
Supreme Court Ruling
The only question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether Congress had power to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S.Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that theGun-Free School Zones Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion and Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg dissented.
The Court reasoned that possession of a gun in a local school zone is not aneconomic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have an impact oninterstate commerce. The act was seen as a criminal statute, having nothingto do with commerce or economic activity, no matter how broad the definitionof that term. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an essential part of larger economic activity. In addition, they claimed that Congressfailed to sufficiently show the link between gun violence in schools with interstate commerce.
Rehnquist made the argument on the basis of history, referring to the fact that the Constitution "created a federal government of limited and enumerated powers." The Court found that some laws are too far removed from the powers granted to Congress to be able to be considered constitutional. Rehnquist alsoindicated that, although there had been some unclear rulings in the past on the nature of the Commerce Clause, the Gun-Free School Zones Act had no "substantial" impact on commerce.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Breyer sought to explain Congress' rational basis for a connection between gun-related violence in schools and interstate commerce. His opinion held that such violence "significantly undermines the quality of education thatis critical to economic prosperity" and that teaching and learning are linked to commerce, which is threatened by the presence of guns in schools.
Implications
The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision does not mean that gun laws will be more difficult to enforce; nor does it mean that guns should be allowed near schools. The main question in thiscase is not about guns or schools, but about how much authority the Congresshas over issues usually legislated by the state. It is a question of the division of power between the federal and state governments, not of crime prevention.
The reason that the Gun-Free School Zone law was tried under the Commerce Clause is a traditionally broad interpretation of the clause to allow federal regulation of activities based on their relation to interstate commerce. Sinceguns often travel through more than one state in the path from manufacturer to purchaser, possession of guns may fall under this clause.
Some say that this ruling may simply signal to Congress that it must more carefully and explicitly detail how its legislation pertains to interstate commerce. Yet the impact of this decision could also be far reaching, affecting such laws as state environmental laws among others. Some commentators interpretthis ruling to mean that Congress will not have the power to legislate withrespect to local and non-economic activities. "At the very least, Lopez has introduced an element of instability in an area of the law previously considered `settled.' Commerce Clause cases clearly merit close watching in the future."
Related Cases
Federal Attempts at Gun Control--A Good Thing?
After the Supreme Court overturned the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 in Lopez, reactions were mixed. A comparison of articles that appeared in the New Republic and USA Today, for instance, might leave one wondering if the commentators were even talking about the same case. "The Lopez decision is good news for liberal constitutionalists," wrote the New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen, who criticized "The mindless impulse to federalize crimes that the states are prosecuting perfectly well on their own .. . If any law falls outside the limits of Congress's power to `regulate Commerce . . . ' the Gun Free School Zones Act is it." To Herb Kohl in USA Today, however, "The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision . . . cripples Congress'spower to fight violence in our schools and raises questions about the federalgovernment's ability to protect its citizens."
Meanwhile, the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 gave pundits much more to debate with regard to the federal government's attempts to fight crime at the state and local level.
Sources
Kohl, Herb. "Keep Schools Gun Free." USA Today, 3 May 1995.
Rosen, Jeffrey. "Fed Up: Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 Justifiably Overturned by U.S. Supreme Court." New Republic, 22 May 1995.
United States
Respondent
Alfonso Lopez, Jr.
Petitioner's Claim
That it was left to Congress to decide what seriously affects interstate commerce and Congress found the Gun-Free School Zone Act constitutional under theCommerce Clause.
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 April 1995
Decision
The Court stated that Congress had overstepped the bounds of the Commerce Clause; the act was deemed unconstitutional.
Significance
The decision dealt a large blow to Congress' attempts to cut down on school--related violence and improve the safety ratings of America's schools. However, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was able to fillin some of the gaps left open by the striking down of the Gun-Free School Zone Act.
Alfonso Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, brought a concealed handgunand five rounds of ammunition into his high school in San Antonio, Texas. Hisweapon was discovered and he was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed afterhe was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, a federal law which forbids a person to possess a firearm in a place that he or sheknows is a school zone. Lopez moved to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional and Congress did not have the power tolegislate with respect to public schools. The district court denied this motion and Lopez was found guilty and was sentenced to six months imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and a $50.00 fine.
Court of Appeals Ruling
Lopez appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, again onthe grounds that Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Attorneys for the United States government contended thatthe law was an appropriate use of power under the interstate Commerce Clause. The circuit court reversed the district court's decision and agreed with Lopez that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was invalid because it was beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. The Court found the federal law unconstitutional.
Supreme Court Ruling
The only question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether Congress had power to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S.Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that theGun-Free School Zones Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion and Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg dissented.
The Court reasoned that possession of a gun in a local school zone is not aneconomic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have an impact oninterstate commerce. The act was seen as a criminal statute, having nothingto do with commerce or economic activity, no matter how broad the definitionof that term. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an essential part of larger economic activity. In addition, they claimed that Congressfailed to sufficiently show the link between gun violence in schools with interstate commerce.
Rehnquist made the argument on the basis of history, referring to the fact that the Constitution "created a federal government of limited and enumerated powers." The Court found that some laws are too far removed from the powers granted to Congress to be able to be considered constitutional. Rehnquist alsoindicated that, although there had been some unclear rulings in the past on the nature of the Commerce Clause, the Gun-Free School Zones Act had no "substantial" impact on commerce.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Breyer sought to explain Congress' rational basis for a connection between gun-related violence in schools and interstate commerce. His opinion held that such violence "significantly undermines the quality of education thatis critical to economic prosperity" and that teaching and learning are linked to commerce, which is threatened by the presence of guns in schools.
Implications
The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision does not mean that gun laws will be more difficult to enforce; nor does it mean that guns should be allowed near schools. The main question in thiscase is not about guns or schools, but about how much authority the Congresshas over issues usually legislated by the state. It is a question of the division of power between the federal and state governments, not of crime prevention.
The reason that the Gun-Free School Zone law was tried under the Commerce Clause is a traditionally broad interpretation of the clause to allow federal regulation of activities based on their relation to interstate commerce. Sinceguns often travel through more than one state in the path from manufacturer to purchaser, possession of guns may fall under this clause.
Some say that this ruling may simply signal to Congress that it must more carefully and explicitly detail how its legislation pertains to interstate commerce. Yet the impact of this decision could also be far reaching, affecting such laws as state environmental laws among others. Some commentators interpretthis ruling to mean that Congress will not have the power to legislate withrespect to local and non-economic activities. "At the very least, Lopez has introduced an element of instability in an area of the law previously considered `settled.' Commerce Clause cases clearly merit close watching in the future."
Related Cases
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
- Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).
- Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
- Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968).
- League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 183 (1968).
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528(1985).
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991).
Federal Attempts at Gun Control--A Good Thing?
After the Supreme Court overturned the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 in Lopez, reactions were mixed. A comparison of articles that appeared in the New Republic and USA Today, for instance, might leave one wondering if the commentators were even talking about the same case. "The Lopez decision is good news for liberal constitutionalists," wrote the New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen, who criticized "The mindless impulse to federalize crimes that the states are prosecuting perfectly well on their own .. . If any law falls outside the limits of Congress's power to `regulate Commerce . . . ' the Gun Free School Zones Act is it." To Herb Kohl in USA Today, however, "The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision . . . cripples Congress'spower to fight violence in our schools and raises questions about the federalgovernment's ability to protect its citizens."
Meanwhile, the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 gave pundits much more to debate with regard to the federal government's attempts to fight crime at the state and local level.
Sources
Kohl, Herb. "Keep Schools Gun Free." USA Today, 3 May 1995.
Rosen, Jeffrey. "Fed Up: Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 Justifiably Overturned by U.S. Supreme Court." New Republic, 22 May 1995.
User Comments Add a comment…