PRESENTED BY: MEGHAN CIACCHELLA/KATHERINE OLENCZUK

U.S. v. Lopez
514 U.S. 549 (1995)
Edison High School

1992: Alfonso Lopez walks into a Texas high

school with an unloaded, concealed handgun.
Lopez is charged with a federal crime under
the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 and is
convicted. He is sentenced to six months in
prison and two years of probation.
Lopez challenges his conviction on the grounds that the Gun Free School
Zones Act is an unconstitutional exercise of congress’s power. Matters
concerning schools are historically under the jurisdiction of the state.
The Federal Government claimed it had the authority to ban guns in schools
under its commerce power (Commerce Clause; United States Constitution).
The court disagreed and reversed the conviction.
The United States Government took the case to the Supreme Court.
The reversal was upheld in a 5-4 vote.
 U.S. v. LOPEZ
Procedural History
1 2 3 4

5. April, 1995- Government appealed ruling from 5th Circuit

Court of Appeals, Supreme Court granted certiorari and upheld
ruling from appellate court..
PREVAILING ISSUES
1. Gun Free Zone Act-1990

1.Commerce Clause

1. Second Amendment

1. Congressional Powers
 GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONE ACT OF 1990

1. In general, “bans possession of firearms within

an elementary or secondary school, on school
property, or within 1,000 feet of school property.”
2. School zone is defined as, “ (1) in, or on the
grounds of, a public, parochial, or private school
or (2) within 1,000 feet from the grounds of such
a school.”
3. First passed under the CRIME CONTROL ACT
of 1990.
4. Held Unconstitutional per Commerce Clause
during U.S. v. LOPEZ
Ascertained per the FBI website. Please see links in comments.
(q)
GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONE ACT §922(q)
(1)The Congress finds and declares that—
(A)crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B)crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C)firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around
schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D)in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they
are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E)while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain
parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to
school for the same reason;
(F)the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G)this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and theforeign commerce of the
United States;
(H)States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States,
localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts
unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I)the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact
measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
Source:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922&sa=D&ust=1564937869485000&usg=AFQjCN
FWoDIuBNs-gTKVr3YoDGo__0CPAw
NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH
THE GUN FREE SCHOOLS ACT 1994

● States that receive federal funds must have in effect a

law requiring schools to expel (for no less than one year)
students who are found to have a weapon at school.

THIS LAW WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE UNTIL

AFTER THIS CASE IN 1994
 Commerce Clause
“Refers to Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 3 of the Us. Constitution,
which gives Congress the
power ‘to regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among
the several states, and with the
Indian tribes.”
Ascertained per Cornell Law Legal Definitions. See Comments
 Commerce Clause Defined
Commerce Clause
Overview
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian
Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their
citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the
states. The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the
regulatory authority of the States.

The Meaning Of "Commerce"

Origin
The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of controversy, as the Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some
argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the Framers of the Constitution intended to describe
more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce"
affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power. Moreover, what constitutes "interstate" commercial activity
has also been subject to consistent debate.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
2nd Amendment Rights
 CONGRESSIONAL POWERS
“To promote the Progress of
Science and the useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to
Authors & Inventors the exclusive
Right to their Respective Writing
and Discoveries”
~ Article 1 Section 8
U.S. Consititution
 THE RULING
SOUTER GINSBERG BREYER
REHNQUIST O’CONNOR THOMAS

SCALIA STEVENS
KENNEDY

● The Supreme Court affirmed the court’s decision to

reverse the conviction of Lopez in a majority vote of 5-4.
OPINION OF THE COURT

The possession of a gun in a local school zone is

in no sense an economic activity that might,
through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect
any sort of interstate commerce.
● SCOTUS argued economic activity in this case was
NOT substantially affected by possession of a gun in a
school zone.
OPINION OF THE COURT

Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its

terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or
any sort of economic enterprise, however
broadly one might define those terms.

● § 922(q) was a CRIMINAL STATUTE that had

nothing to do with “commerce”
OPINION OF THE COURT

922 contains no jurisdictional element which

would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry,
that the firearm possession in questions
affects interstate commerce.”
● § 922(q) contained “NO JURISDICTIONAL
ELEMENT” which would ensure that firearm
possession affects interstate commerce.
● Revised GFSZA addresses this.
OPINION OF THE COURT

The Government admits, under its ‘costs of crime’

reasoning, that Congress could regulate not only all
violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent
crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to
interstate commerce.

● Basic argument: would give Congress too much

power to regulate and then leave other areas for
Congress to “overstep” and regulate as well.
DISSENTING OPINION
Stevens Souter Ginsberg

Having found that guns in schools significantly undermine the

quality of education in our Nation’s classrooms, Congress
could also have found, given the effect of education upon
Breyer J. interstate and foreign commerce, that gun-related violence in
and around schools is a commercial, as well as human,
problem.
● “Gun related violence is a real threat.”
● Gun violence indeed has “adverse effects” on classroom learning, thereby
demonstrating substantial effect.”
● Guns in schools would then impact trade and commerce.
GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT - REV 1996
● Following the Lopez decision, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno proposed
changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted in section 657 of the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104–208, 110
Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996.

● These changes required that the firearm in question "has

moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.”

● As nearly all firearms have moved in interstate commerce at some point in

their existence, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to
circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.
 WHY ★ SLIPPERY SLOPE: What issues would
Congress “regulate” next? Too much power
WAS THIS CASE given to one branch of government.
★ CONGRESS TOO POWERFUL: Give
RELEVANT? Congress “general police powers” and begin
to overreach and regulate areas like
curriculum, family issues, etc.

WHAT NOW?: Possible Ramifications

★ More legal debates 2nd Amendment Rights?
★ Assault rifle and other gun issues?
★ Uncertainty continues
★ Making others ‘open to attacks’
 So...DID CONGRESS OVERREACH?
Congress Can Regulate
1. “Use of channels of interstate commerce.”
2. Congress has authority to regulate and protect the
“instrumentalities of interstate commerce or persons or
things in interstate commerce.”
3. Commerce Authority granted power to regulate IF
activities have SUBSTANTIAL relation to interstate
commerce.”
Grey Area of Powers
1. Supreme Court Case laws were NOT clear
whether activity must “affect” or
“SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT”
interstate commerce in order to be within the
jurisdiction of Congress’s authority to regulate
under Commerce Clause.
DIGITAL RESOURCES USED
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-
cases-elessons/us-v-lopez-1995/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_us.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/27/us/high-court-kills-law-banning-guns-in-a-school-zone.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/foundations-of-american-
democracy/constitutional-interpretations-of-federalism/a/us-v-lopez-1995

https://www.thoughtco.com/united-states-v-lopez-4584312

https://legaldictionary.net/united-states-v-lopez/

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause