We recently studied a lot of significant court cases in class, but one yet to mentioned is US vs Lopez, which is significant because it was the first case since the New Deal that limited the powers of Congress under the commerce clause.
Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his high school and was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. However, the state charges were dismissed and Lopez was charged for violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which basically forbid people from having guns in places they know to be a school zone. Lopez was found guilty under this act and was sentenced to 6 months jail time and two years of supervised release.
Lopez argued that the Gun Free School Zones Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power because schools were controlled by state and local governments and were not under the authority of the federal government. The federal government claimed that it had the authority to ban guns in schools under its commerce power. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
The government asserted that the law was related to interstate commerce because guns in school led to gun violence. People would then be reluctant to travel through the areas where the violence occurred. The government also argued that the disruptions to the learning environment created by guns in schools result in a less educated citizenry, negatively affecting commerce.
Lopez appealed his conviction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed on the issue of congressional authority. It ruled that the law was invalid because it went beyond the powers of Congress under the commerce clause. On November 8, 1994, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, which affirmed the order of the Fifth Circuit. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was neither a regulation of the channels of interstate commerce nor an attempt to prohibit interstate transportation of a commodity through those channels. Consequently, he determined that if the act were to withstand judicial scrutiny, it would have to substantially affect interstate commerce.
Like we discussed in class, Rehnquist believed there needed to be a limit on Congressional power and was confident in the Court’s superiority in the interpretation of the Constitution. Because of this, in cases like US vs Lopez, some power was returned to the states.
Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-v-Lopez
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/us-v-lopez-1995/
I find it so interesting how the decisions in Supreme Court cases like this don't only affect the people involved in the trial; instead, some cases actually shape the way that the Court itself functions, and how much power it holds in government. Has there been a more recent case that has either affirmed or reversed parts of the decision in US v Lopez?
ReplyDeleteI think that it's interesting that the supreme court had made a statement here about Gun Rights in such a controversial setting. Most students including myself would agree that schools should be a gun free zone, so why decide to defend a student that broke this law. I think that this sets a dangerous precedent for allowing firearms on campuses and I think that it demonstrates the strong push for the 2nd amendment that was made during this time period.
ReplyDelete