Week 3 Case study

Article Search

Submitted by: Venkat Vala

Professor: Francis A. Hatstat

Due Date:31st October.

Webster University.
To: Francis A. Hatstat,
From: Venkat Vala
Date: 31/10/2023.
Subject: The Case of United States v. Lopez and Its Implications
Summary:
Alfonso Lopez, a senior in high school, strolled into his San Antonio high school with a
hidden firearm in 1992. He was detained for breaching a Texas law that forbade the possession
of firearms on school grounds. Lopez was initially accused in a Texas court, but he was later
charged with breaching the Gun-Free Schools Act, a federal violation. Lopez was found guilty
and appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the statute exceeded congressional authority
because schools were meant to be managed at the state level, not the federal one. The court
agreed with him, and the conviction was reversed.
Analysis of the article:
Alfonso Lopez, from San Antonio, Texas, entered his high school with an unloaded
firearm. Lopez was arrested and charged with violating the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act
after confessing to holding the gun. The act makes it a crime "for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm [in] a school zone." Lopez was found guilty by a trial court after being indicted
by a grand jury and sentenced to six months in prison and two years on probation. Lopez filed an
appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, contending that the Gun-Free School Zones Act
violated Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. (The Commerce Clause empowers
Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian
tribes"). Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify gun control legislation. The
Fifth Circuit reversed Lopez's conviction, finding that possession of a firearm had only a "trivial
impact" on trade, and noting that the legislative history of the Gun-Free School Zones Act failed
to establish it as a legitimate exercise of the trade Clause. The Supreme Court agreed to review
the Circuit Court's decision when it granted the United States government's petition for certiorari.
Application:
The article is directly applicable to my subject since it discusses a legal case, US v. Lopez
upheld the federalist system, which delegated certain powers to states and others to the federal
government. It upheld the premise that governments have authority over local problems such as
gun ownership on school grounds. The case was the first in a long time in which the federal
government was found to have overstepped its bounds and Congress had granted itself much too
much power under the commerce clause. The decision in United States v. Lopez reinforced the
balance of authority between the federal and state governments.
Reflection:
The case of United States v. Lopez (1995) shows the Court's role in preserving state
sovereignty, particularly in areas traditionally administered by the states, as well as the need to
maintain a balanced division of powers as prescribed by the Constitution. The case emphasizes
the need for a substantial connection to interstate commerce for federal legislation to be legally
legitimate, which is a necessary constraint on federal authority. It serves as a striking reminder of
the delicate balancing act that policymakers must perform in order to produce effective laws and
policies that both honor state governments' rights and satisfy the nation's greater interests. This
viewpoint is especially relevant for law and policy students because it highlights the importance
of careful and measured governance.
APA citation and a line:
Longley, R. (2021, April 10). United States v. Lopez: The Case and Its Impact. ThoughtCo.
Retrieved October 31, 2023, from https://www.thoughtco.com/united-states-v-lopez-4584312
The case of United States v. Lopez was a watershed moment because it determined that
the federal government had exceeded its power under the commerce clause. It is also a crucial
reference point for discussions about federalism and the scope of congressional jurisdiction in
the United States.