BRIEF A CASE – USA V.

LOPEZ
TITLE AND CITATION
Following is the case brief for United States V. Lopez (93-1260), 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

FACTS OF THE CASE

On March 10, 1992, Alfonso Lopez, a 12th grade student, brought a concealed .38 caliber
handgun and five bullets at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. School authorities
asked him if he was carrying the weapon and he admitted. Therefore, he was arrested, and he
was charged with violating a Texas statute that prohibits carrying a weapon. However, this
charge was dropped soon after. Then, he was charged with violating the federal Gun-Free
School Zones Act, which stated that it was a federal offense: “for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a
school zone”.

His motion to dismiss was denied by a federal district court, which said the Act was only a
constitutional exercise of the Congress. He was found guilty and got sentenced to six months
of imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, claiming that Congress had “exceeded its power to legislate under the Commerce
clause”, and that therefore the Act was unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the decision of the federal district court, saying that the possession of a firearm has
only a “trivial impact” on commerce.

The Supreme Court accepted to judge the case.

ISSUE
The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Gun-Free school Zones Act was
constitutional in the light of the Commerce Clause.

DECISION
The Supreme Court stated that the Act was unconstitutional, rejecting the government’s
arguments which said that the act surely was constitutional as buying and selling of guns
affected “interstate commerce” which was part of Congress powers under the Commerce
Clause.

REASONING
Chief Justice Rehnquist explained that Congress, according to the Constitution, could only
regulate three points under the Commerce clause:
- The channels of interstate commerce
- The instrumentalities of interstate commerce
- Activities that substantially affect interstate commerce
However, regulating gun possession in school did not involve any of those 3 categories,
except if Congress proved that regulating gun possession near schools substantially affected
on interstate commerce.
The Government’s argument was to say that “violent crime results from gun ownership near
schools, causing significant economic costs nationwide” and that the possession of guns in
school threaten the learning environment and lead to a less educated citizenry.
The Supreme Court rejected the Government’s argument, as it considered that carrying a gun
in schools does not “affect substantially interstate commerce”. The SC said there was no
jurisdictional element in the Act that made unlawful possession of a gun related to the
interstate commerce. Furthermore, the Act and its legislative history did not contain any
express findings of fact regarding the effect of gun possession on interstate commerce.
Therefore, the Supreme Court judged the Act was unconstitutional.

SEPARATE OPINIONS
It was a 5-4 majority opinion.
Those who thought that the Act was constitutional persisted on saying that the power of
regulation that was implied in the Commerce Clause “significantly affect” interstate
commerce, and that it was all about considering the “cumulative effect of all similar acts” on
interstate commerce. They said that the SC lacked of “a “rational basis” for concluding that
the activity affected interstate commerce”. (Justice Breyer)

ANALYSIS
Even if, nowadays, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 remains in effect and still is used
by several United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, it was rewrote by the Congress which was
forced to include that notion of “substantially affecting the interstate commerce”.
Thus, in this Lopez Case, it was the first time that the SC reduced the Congress’ commerce
power.