U.S. v. Lopez | BRI’s Homework Help Series

0:00 In 1990, in response to gun violence in and around American schools, Congress enacted the Gun-Free Zones Act. This Act made it a federal crime to possess a firearm within a thousand feet of a public, private, or parochial primary secondary school its surrounding public property. Congress claimed it had the authority to pass this law under the powers

0:23 of the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. In 1992, a gun possession charge of a San Antonio, Texas high school student raised questions about the extent of Congress’s power to regulate commerce whether it had any limits. Are there constitutional limitations on Congress’s power to regulate commerce?

0:47 This is the case of US versus Lopez. [music] In 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a senior at Edison High School

1:10 in San Antonio, Texas carried a loaded 38-caliber gun to school in a concealed manner. After receiving an anonymous tip, school officials confronted Lopez about the firearm. {pos(322.474,253.501)}He was arrested and initially charged with violating a state law. {pos(320.825,252.7)}These charges were dropped, however, when federal officials charged him with violating the Gun-Free Zones Act, a much more serious offense.

1:34 Lopez was indicted by a federal grand jury and tried in a federal district court where his lawyers argued that the federal government had no authority over public schools because they were the responsibility of localities and states. Lopez’s conviction under federal law raised questions about the extent of Congress’s power to regulate commerce and whether it had any limits.

1:56 The other constitutional issue at hand concerned the extent {pos(319.999,281.922)}of the federal government’s authority over street crime, which was also traditionally the responsibility of local and state governments. Despite the efforts of his counsel, Lopez was sentenced in federal court to six months in jail two years of parole, Lopez continued his fight. He appealed to the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

2:18 where his attorney argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate guns near public schools under the Commerce Clause. The appellate court agreed with Lopez and reversed the decision of the lower federal courts. Now with conflicting decisions, the case was taken to the highest possible level. The Supreme Court had not declared {pos(320.825,264.714)}a law made under the Commerce Clause unconstitutional for almost 60 years

2:42 {pos(316.257,283.395)}since the new deal, the last being a law challenged in the case, {pos(319.175,282.334)}Carter versus Carter Coal Company, in 1936. Arguments before the Supreme Court began on November 8th in 1994. Solicitor General Drew Days argued the case for the government. {pos(322.474,340)}He emphasized that gun violence in schools would affect not just localities, educations across the nation,

3:03 should therefore be regulated as interstate commerce. The defense reiterated its arguments that the law was unconstitutional because it bore no relation to interstate commerce and intruded on both local state responsibilities. It was time for the Supreme Court to break the tie. Would they uphold the federal courts decision and confirm Lopez conviction?

3:24 Or would they deem the law he was charged with an unconstitutional use of the Commerce Clause? On April 26, 1995, in a tight 5-to-4 vote, {pos(320.825,304.76)}the Supreme Court decided that, yes, the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because the zones created by the Act were not related to interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.

3:44 Lopez and his counsel were victorious. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that while possession of a gun in a school zone was a criminal act, such an act could only be regulated by state or local governments. He wrote: "Under the theories that the government presents in support of the law,

4:04 it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the government’s arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate."

4:25 Justice Clarence Thomas would write a concurring opinion, arguing that the court could not give Congress a blank check to make any laws it wanted. The four dissenting judges argued that the other judges were substituting their private views for those of elected officials in Congress. {pos(322.474,274.325)}In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the Gun-Free Zone Act {pos(322.474,273.524)}fell within the scope of the commerce power.

4:48 {pos(320,274.325)}He wrote that Congress could have rationally found that violent crime in school zones negatively impacts the quality of education, that education, although far more than a matter of economics, has long been inextricably intertwined with the nation’s economy. The Lopez’s case is important because it is a part of a continuing debate over the relative power of the state national governments

5:09 in our federalist system. Continued incidents of gun violence the enduring constitutional question of the parameters {pos(320.825,281.533)}of federal and state power ensures that Lopez’s case will continue to be relevant, revisited, and debated. The struggle between the states federal government over constitutional powers means that the Supreme Court

5:30 will likely address the question of federalism once again. Will the subject of commerce be a focal point? Or will something entirely different take precedents? This was the case of US versus Lopez. Thanks for watching. If you want to learn more about US history and civics– Be sure to like, share, subscribe, comment down below.

5:50 [music]