United States v. Alfonzo Lopez, Jr. (1995)
General Overview of case-
Alfonzo Lopez carried a concealed weapon into his Texas high school where he
was a 12th grader. He was arrested for carrying a firearm on school property.
Lopez was then charged with violating the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This
act states that any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place they know
is a school zone. Lopez was found guilty. Possession of a gun near school is not an
economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
General Overview of case-
Alfonzo Lopez carried a concealed weapon into his Texas high school where he
was a 12th grader. He was arrested for carrying a firearm on school property.
Lopez was then charged with violating the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This
act states that any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place they know
is a school zone. Lopez was found guilty. Possession of a gun near school is not an
economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Main Argument for each side- The defendant’s side argued that the vital importance of education to commerce among the states and with foreign nations justifies the use of the commerce power to secure the educational environment. The Court argues that in the final category, an activity must “substantially affect” interstate commerce in order to be within the Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. It is not clear by the text or by the legislative history of the statute that possessing a gun in a school zone has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
List of Justices & how they voted-
William H. Rehnquist- Wrote the majority opinion
Sandra Day O’Connor- Voted with majority, joined Kennedy’s concurrence
Antonin Scalia- Voted with majority
Anthony M. Kennedy- Wrote a regular concurrence
Clarence Thomas- Wrote a regular concurrence
John Paul Stevens- Wrote a dissent, joined Ginsburg’s dissent
David H. Scouter- Wrote a dissent, joined Ginsburg’s dissent
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- Voted with minority, joined Breyer’s dissent
Stephen G. Breyer- Wrote a dissent
5 votes for Lopez, 4 votes against
William H. Rehnquist- Wrote the majority opinion
Sandra Day O’Connor- Voted with majority, joined Kennedy’s concurrence
Antonin Scalia- Voted with majority
Anthony M. Kennedy- Wrote a regular concurrence
Clarence Thomas- Wrote a regular concurrence
John Paul Stevens- Wrote a dissent, joined Ginsburg’s dissent
David H. Scouter- Wrote a dissent, joined Ginsburg’s dissent
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- Voted with minority, joined Breyer’s dissent
Stephen G. Breyer- Wrote a dissent
5 votes for Lopez, 4 votes against
Main majority opinion-
Protection of our fundamental liberties demands a limited federal government with clearly enumerated powers. a hallmark of its Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Comprehensive as the word 'among' is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one. . . . The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something . . . must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State." (Gibbons v. Ogden). Rehnquist goes on to identify similar limiting language in a series of pre-New Deal cases which approved some federal commercial regulations (by finding the intrastate and interstate aspects of an activity so connected as to be impossible to seperate), but struck down others (by declaring "production" and "manufacturing" distinct from commerce and not subject to regulation or by labeling the regulated behavior as having too "indirect" an effect on commerce).
Protection of our fundamental liberties demands a limited federal government with clearly enumerated powers. a hallmark of its Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Comprehensive as the word 'among' is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one. . . . The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something . . . must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State." (Gibbons v. Ogden). Rehnquist goes on to identify similar limiting language in a series of pre-New Deal cases which approved some federal commercial regulations (by finding the intrastate and interstate aspects of an activity so connected as to be impossible to seperate), but struck down others (by declaring "production" and "manufacturing" distinct from commerce and not subject to regulation or by labeling the regulated behavior as having too "indirect" an effect on commerce).
Main dissenting opinion-
Guns are articles of commerce and can be used to interfere with commerce. The national interest justifies prohibiting their use by children in school. The only inquiry should be whether the legislative judgment is within the realm of reason. Congress should have plenary power to legislate under the Commerce Clause as long as the law passes the rational basis test. Violence in schools interferes with the quality of education and education is inextricably tied to the economy. Congress could have rationally concluded that the possession of guns in school zones is related to interstate commerce. The majority contradicts well settled precedent that has permitted Congress to regulate noncommercial activity affecting interstate commerce.
Guns are articles of commerce and can be used to interfere with commerce. The national interest justifies prohibiting their use by children in school. The only inquiry should be whether the legislative judgment is within the realm of reason. Congress should have plenary power to legislate under the Commerce Clause as long as the law passes the rational basis test. Violence in schools interferes with the quality of education and education is inextricably tied to the economy. Congress could have rationally concluded that the possession of guns in school zones is related to interstate commerce. The majority contradicts well settled precedent that has permitted Congress to regulate noncommercial activity affecting interstate commerce.