United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of federal authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The case arose in 1990 when the Gun-Free School Zones Act was enacted, making it a federal offense to possess a firearm within one thousand feet of a school. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a high school student in Texas, was charged under this federal law after bringing a handgun to school. A federal court of appeals ruled that the statute violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states.
In a surprising 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist emphasizing that the possession of guns near schools did not significantly impact interstate commerce. This ruling underscored the principle of dual sovereignty, highlighting the division of powers between federal and state governments. The decision was significant in its implications for future federal regulations and marked a shift in judicial approaches to federalism, signaling a potential reevaluation of the balance between state and federal powers.
United States v. Lopez
Date: April 26, 1995
Citation: 514 U.S. 549
Issues: Commerce clause; Tenth Amendment
Significance: The Supreme Court held that a federal statute was unconstitutional because Congress had overstepped its authority to regulate interstate commerce.
In 1990 Congress passed the Gun-free School Zone Act, making it a federal crime to possess a gun within one thousand feet of a school. After Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a high school student in Texas, was arrested for taking a handgun to school, he was tried under federal law because the federal penalties were greater than those under state law. A federal court of appeals found that the federal statute violated the Tenth Amendment. Most observers expected the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment because the Court in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) had held that the scope of federal authority to regulate commerce was a political question to be decided by the political process rather than by the Courts.
By a 5-4 vote, however, the Court upheld the ruling. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s majority opinion reasoned that possession of guns near a school had noting to do with interstate commerce and that such an issue is traditionally a concern of local police power. As a principle, he wrote that Congress could regulate only “those activities that have a substantial relationship to interstate commerce.”
The Lopez decision appeared to mark a renaissance for the principle of dual sovereignty, which had largely been abandoned following Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936). It was not clear how far the trend would go, but the Court in Printz v. United States (1997) held that Congress had no power to force states to enforce federal regulations absent a particular constitutional authorization.