Today in Supreme Court History: April 26, 1995

4/26/1995: U.S. v. Lopez decided.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

U.S. v. Lopez is an important Commerce Clause precedent though it had a limited reach. It is often not too hard to find a "federal hook" if you want to prosecute a gun crime near a school. Also, federal funding can have strings.

Arguably, the better argument would be related to the Second Amendment. The 2A is concerned about the states' power over the militia. There are many possible policy choices there regarding handling guns near schools.

Some would argue education is a local matter so perhaps cite the 10A. OTOH, these days, it less so in various ways.

Stevens argued:

In my judgment, Congress' power to regulate commerce in firearms includes the power to prohibit possession of guns at any location because of their potentially harmful use; it necessarily follows that Congress may also prohibit their possession in particular markets. The market for the possession of handguns by school-age children is, distressingly, substantial.

The main dissent argued that line drawing here should generally be done by Congress. There is a reasonable connection to interstate commerce.

A concurring opinion countered that federalism promotes liberty & that provides a role here for the courts. That's true but I think the question is close here.

Mere possession near schools being held not to be something for Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause is a reasonable line. It surely is better than the commerce section of the PPACA Cases.

Still, the dissenters have a point.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In my judgment, Congress' power to regulate commerce in firearms includes the power to prohibit possession of guns at any location "

In Stevens' view, there's no more individual right to own guns than to own lawn darts, so that's "any or all'; But his views ran contrary to the express language of the Constitution on many topics, not just this one.

That said, it's anybody's guess whether the Court would uphold the reenacted act with commerce clause boilerplate added. While the Court no longer humors Stevens' take on the 2nd amendment, they don't seem inclined to limit Congressional power so long as Congress remembers those magic words.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That said, it's anybody's guess whether the Court would uphold the reenacted act with commerce clause boilerplate added.

There is no serious argument against the amended statute under the court’s current commerce clause jurisprudence, and so reason to think there are five justices interested in revolutionizing it to the degree that would be necessary to strike it down. So it’s about as closed a question as you’re likely to get.

[wvattorney13]

I agree. And that's why Lopez is such a nothingburger. The feds cannot ban firearms in school zones entirely. But they can ban firearms in school zones which have been in or affect interstate commerce, and the latter set of firearms include ALL firearms. So they therefore may ban firearms in school zones entirely.

So, what did Lopez accomplish exactly? Is it just to make sure that Congress uses a macro for inserting "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" in all legislation? That seems like something not worthy of SCOTUS attention.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The opinion was also not a one-off.

See, e.g., U.S. v. Morrison.

[Thought about __ all my life]

IF I, a completely deranged misanthropic bastard (and maybe an illegal allien) want maximal killing,maybe children, I go to a safe place, a gun-free school zone. Lopez was an illustration of the idiocy of modern law

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2025/04/Unknown-copy-6.jpeg
As illustrated in this meme?

[Malika the Maiz]

“and maybe an illegal allien”

Rolls eyes

[hobie]

Malika, STOP!

[Frank Drackman]

get a room you two!

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (decided April 26, 1995): Gun-Free School Zones Act (prohibiting guns in school zone) exceeds Commerce Clause power because gun possession is not economic activity; 5 - 4 decision

Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (decided April 26, 2005): 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) (prohibiting gun possession by anyone “convicted in any court” of crime punishable by more than one year) does not apply to foreign convictions (here, in Japan for smuggling guns) (§922(g)(8), which restricted the gun rights of wife and child beaters, was recently declared unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds, 61 F.4th 443, 3/2/23; the Court took up the appeal and reversed, United States v. Rahimi, 2024)

Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (decided April 26, 1977): invalidating on Equal Protection grounds Illinois statute allowing non-marital children to inherit from intestate mothers but not from intestate fathers

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 578 U.S. 266 (decided April 26, 2016): valid §1983 claim even though superiors’ belief that plaintiff (a policeman) was participating in political activity (not a permissible reason for demotion) was mistaken (he was at campaign headquarters for mayor’s opponent not to help with campaign but to pick up yard sign as favor to his bedridden mother)

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (decided April 26, 2006): one suing federal officials for malicious prosecution (an example of a Bivens suit, the federal analog of a §1983 suit against state officials) must show absence of probable cause for prosecution

Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (decided April 26, 2000): former president of company could not sue under RICO after being terminated on trumped-up charges after discovering and punishing corruption among subordinates because termination was not part of their racketeering

Pasquantinov v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (decided April 26, 2005): Canada liquor taxes are “property” within meaning of Wire Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1343, so scheme to defraud can be prosecuted despite rule at common law that courts can’t enforce tax laws of foreign sovereigns (I’m almost quoting from Thomas’s elegant 3-sentence introduction) (defendants smuggled liquor in from Canada without paying Canadian excise taxes) (so if the Court, as allowed by the statute, imposes a fine instead of a sentence, does the money go to the Canadian government?)

New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (decided April 26, 1995): ERISA did not preempt New York statute placing surcharges on benefits from hospital insurance plans governed by ERISA

Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (decided April 26, 1993): First Amendment violated by statute banning unwanted telephone call solicitations by CPA (he’s probably blocked by do-not-call laws now)

Long Island Water-Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, N.Y., 166 U.S. 685 (decided April 26, 1897): In 1886 the town of New Lots was annexed by the City of Brooklyn, which condemned a water supply system operated by a private company. The Court holds that this did not violate Contracts Clause, art. I, §10, because it was a “taking” of property for public use for which the company was compensated.

[A Japanese Student]

Small was a reasonable outcome. First, not all countries have the felony-misdemeanor distinction, so the American definition of using statutory maximum does not work well.

Traffic accidents are a good example, since it is a regularly enforced criminal statute that many people plead guilty to. "Negligent driving causing injury or death" is punishable by up to seven years in prison. DUI, while misdemeanor in most States (Massachusetts and Vermont seem to be the exception), is punishable by three years in prison.

The "degree" of crime is also not a universal concept. Shoplifting and bank burglary are both punishable by up to 10 years. Vandalism is punishable by three years. Though one could argue that those people cannot be trusted with handling firearms anyway.

Then, there are provisions that ordinary people regularly violate. Criminal defamation, which includes posting bad online reviews (whether true or false), is punishable by three years. If you instead post a meme, then there is a small risk of being charged with criminal copyright infringement, punishable by up to 10 years. Unlike the US, where only some infringing acts are criminal (17 USC §506), Japanese law allows conviction for any infringement so long as the copyright owner submits a formal complaint. The police probably won't pursue most of those cases, but they are demonstrative.

And there's the Public Offices Election Act, which, if brought to the US, would have most of its provisions struck down as First Amendment violation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[wvattorney13]

Lopez was a decision that gave us limited government types a great hope that the Court would reign in the expansive gloss on the commerce clause. It's been a bust.

In the past 30 years the Court has done little to nothing to limit its scope. Lopez was a one-off, good for this ride only coupon that can be easily drafted around.

[Frank Drackman]

What sucks is Lopez won his case but did 6 months in the Hoose-gow, more than Alfredo Kill-more Garcias has