United States v.

Lopez (1995)

1. People Involved:
• Petitioner: United States
• Respondent: Alfonso Lopez, 12th-grade student
Why:
• On March 10, 1992, the student brought concealed .38 caliber hand-gun and five
bullets to Edison High School in San Antonio, TX.
Charged with:
• Violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. District Court sentenced him to
six months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release.
Appeal:
• On appeal, Lopez challenged his conviction on the clam that the Gun-Free School
Zones Act o 1992 is unconstitutional.
Result:
• The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed respondent’s
conviction.

2. The Supreme Court warned that the scope of the interstate commerce must stay within
limits and not extend to embrace even the indirect and remote effects for this will lead to
the obliteration of distinction between national and local government responsibilities.

3. Three categories of activity:

• First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. This
means that the Congress resides over the terms and conditions on which goods or
services are sold interstate and also over the restriction of the types of goods that can
be shipped interstate.
• Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the
threat may come only from intrastate activities. Therefore, Congress has the power to
protect us from threats that come from interstate or local activities. Meaning Congress
may impose safety standards on intrastate carriers that use the same railway tracks,
airspace, or highways as interstate carriers, in order to prevent them from endangering
interstate carriers that operate on the same routes.
• Lastly, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities
having a substantial relation to interstate commerce. Thus, the meaning assigned to
the word “substantially” will determine the extent to which Congress may reach local
activities.

4. The government argued that possession of a firearm in a school zone may cause violent
crime and that this can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy. The
costs of the violent crime are substantial and these costs are spread throughout the
population. Also, it reduces the willingness of individual to travel to other areas within
the country that are perceived as unsafe. Furthermore the government claimed that the
presence of guns poses a substantial threat to education by threatening the learning
environment and that this would have an effect on the Nation’s economic well being due
to less productive citizenry.
5. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. The decision claimed that the law
should be unconstitutional because the possession of a gun in a local school zone is not
an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on
interstate commerce. Furthermore, the law was a criminal statute that had nothing to do
with “commerce.”

6. The dissenters include Justice Breyer, Justice Stevens, Justice Souter and Justice
Ginsburg. These justices said the law should be constitutional because of what they
believed as connection the between gun-related violence in schools and interstate
commerce. They said that the presence of guns in schools would cause violence and
violence “significantly undermines the quality of education that is critical to economic
prosperity” and that teaching and learning are tied into commerce.

7. The United States v. Lopez case shows that Inour political system implementing policy
proves to be a difficult feat. Although the majority may believe the implementing the
policy is the right thing to do, if it does not comply with the Constitution, the policy
cannot play its role. Furthermore, there are countless others who test the policies and
some are rid of. Not to mention, the reasons for the charge must be carefully placed for if
not specific, the respondent may call for appeal, making the policy ineffective. The case
reflects all of these possible causes that make implementing policy difficult.