U.S. v. Lopez

• Decision Date: 26 April 1995
• Docket Number: 931260
• Citation: 131 L.Ed.2d 626,514 U.S. 549,115 S.Ct. 1624
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Alfonso LOPEZ, Jr
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

514 U.S. 549

115 S.Ct. 1624

131 L.Ed.2d 626

UNITED STATES, Petitioner

v Alfonso LOPEZ, Jr.

No. 93-1260.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Nov. 8, 1994.

Decided April 26, 1995.

Syllabus^*

After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone,"18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A).The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce.In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held:The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority.First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce.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 those terms are defined.Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce.Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.Pp. __.

2 F.3d 1342, (CA51993), affirmed.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined.KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined.THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.STEVENS, J., and SOUTER, J., filed dissenting opinions.BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

Drew S. Days, III, New Haven, CT, for petitioner.

John R. Carter, Georgetown, TX, for respondent.

Chief Justice REHNQUISTdelivered the opinion of the Court.

In the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A)(1988 ed., Supp. V).The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce.We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress"[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States. . . ."U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

On March 10, 1992, respondent, who was then a 12th-grade student, arrived at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, carrying a concealed .38 caliber handgun and five bullets.Acting upon an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted respondent, who admitted that he was carrying the weapon.He was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises.SeeTex.Penal Code Ann. § 46.03(a)(1)(Supp.1994).The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged respondent by complaint with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A)(1988 ed., Supp. V).¹

A federal grand jury indicted respondent on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone, in violation of § 922(q).Respondent moved to dismiss his federal indictment on the ground that § 922(q)"is unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools."The District Court denied the motion, concluding that § 922(q)"is a constitutional exercise of Congress' well-defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools . . . affects interstate commerce."App. to Pet. forCert. 55a.Respondent waived his right to a jury trial.The District Court conducted a bench trial, found him guilty of violating § 922(q), and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.

On appeal, respondent challenged his conviction based on his claim that § 922(q) exceeded Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause.The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed respondent's conviction.It held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, "section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."2 F.3d 1342, 1367-1368(1993).Because of the importance of the issue, we granted certiorari, 511 U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1536, 128 L.Ed.2d 189(1994), and we now affirm.

We start with first principles.The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.SeeU.S. Const., Art. I, § 8.As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293(C. Rossitered. 1961).This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties."Gregory v. Ashcroft,501 U.S. 452, 458, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2400, 115 L.Ed.2d 410(1991)(internal quotation marks omitted)."Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front."Ibid.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.The Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress' commerce power in Gibbons v.Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190, 6 L.Ed. 23(1824):

"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse.It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."

The commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution."Id., at 196.The Gibbons Court, however, acknowledged that limitations on the commerce power are inherent in the very language of the Commerce Clause.

"It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States.Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.

"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, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State."Id., at 194-195.

For nearly a century thereafter, the Court's Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress' power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce.See, e.g., Veazie v. Moor,14 How. 568, 573-575, 14 L.Ed. 545(1853)(upholding a state-created steamboat monopoly because it involved regulation of wholly internal commerce);Kidd v. Pearson,128 U.S. 1, 17, 20-22, 9 S.Ct. 6, 9-10, 32 L.Ed. 346(1888)(upholding a state prohibition on the manufacture of intoxicating liquor because the commerce power "does not comprehend the purely domestic commerce of a State which is carried on between man and man within a State or between different parts of the same State"); see also L.Tribe, American Constitutional Law 306(2d ed. 1988).Under this line of precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as "production,""manufacturing," and "mining" were within the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.SeeWickard v. Filburn,317 U.S. 111, 121, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87, 87 L.Ed. 122(1942)(describing development of Commerce Clause jurisprudence).

In 1887, Congress enacted the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 379, and in 1890, Congress enacted the Sherman Antitrust Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.These...