Hey there and welcome back to Heimler's History. In this video we're going to look at a Supreme Court case required for the AP government curriculum, namely United States v. Lopez in 1995. So if you're ready to get them brain cows milked interstate commerce style, then let's get to it. So as with every required Supreme Court case for this curriculum, you need to know five things about this case.
First up, the facts of the case. So in United States v. Lopez, here is what happens. In San Antonio, Texas, a high school senior named Alfonso Lopez decided to carry a .38 caliber pistol along with some . bullets to school. And the administration received an anonymous tip that he had done so, found the gun, and then Lopez was arrested and sent to jail because under Texas law, it was forbidden to carry a gun onto school property.
The next day, all the charges were dropped against Lopez. Wait. Why?
Just hold on, I'm gonna tell you. As it turned out, in addition to the state laws in Texas prohibiting guns on school property, there was also a federal law called the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which also prohibited guns on school property. So the state charges were dropped because federal charges were brought against Lopez. And as it turned out, Lopez was found guilty of breaking this federal law and sentenced to six months in prison.
Okay, that seems very clean, but here's where it gets a little messy. Let's look at the Constitutional Principle at stake. And here's where I have to clear up a potential misconception.
Because the facts of this case have everything to do with guns, you're naturally going to think this is a Second Amendment case. But it is not. Let me say it plainly, U.S. v. Lopez is not a case about the bang bang and the pew pew. Think back to the enumerated powers of Congress and the reserved powers of the states.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Congress has any authority to pass legislation about guns? That is right, it does not. Gun legislation is a state- issue. So how in the world did Congress pass a federal law prohibiting guns on school property?
Well, they did it based on the authority granted to Congress in the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There it says that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. Now for our purposes, we just need to focus on Congress's authority to regulate commerce among the several states.
And look, scholars have been arguing for a long time over exactly what this clause means, but But basically it just means that Congress has the authority to establish a free trade zone among the states. So Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act based on its authority in the Commerce Clause. Now if that sounds confusing, like what in the world does regulating interstate commerce have to do with bringing guns to school, well let me just show you how each side argued its case. The lawyers for the United States argued that guns in school are related to interstate commerce because guns lead to gun violence. And if there is gun violence in schools...
then people from other states might be less likely to travel through those towns, which would negatively affect commerce in those places. Additionally, if gun violence is rampant on school property, the learning environment deteriorates, which leads to a less educated citizenry, which then leads to those citizens not buying as much stuff. And if that sauce tastes a little weak to you, well, I'm not going to argue. Lopez's lawyers, on the other hand, argued that gun regulation on school property is a power specifically reserved for the states, and that the connection between the Commerce Clause and gun violence is weak at best and tyrannical federal overreach at worst.
In other words, Congress had no business passing this law in the first place. So those were the arguments, let's see how it was decided. As it turns out, the Supreme Court sided with Lopez in a 5-4 decision, and here's the reasoning from the majority opinion. Under the theories that the government presents in support of this case, 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 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. In other words, if Congress can use the Commerce Clause to regulate guns on school property, what can't Congress regulate with the Commerce Clause? So at the end of the day, here's why this case matters. Ultimately, this is a case about federalism and the balance of power between the federal and state governments.
There have been cases in the past, like McCulloch v. Maryland, that have tipped this balance of power toward the federal government, but in the United States v. Lopez, the decision is a clear example of the court ruling in favor of state power over federal power. Okay, if you need more videos on your Supreme Court cases, have a look at this playlist right here. If you want help getting an A in your class and a 5 on your exam in May, then you can click right up here and grab my Ultimate Review Packet and watch all your dreams come true.
And finally, if this helped you and you want me to keep making these videos, then subscribe and that'll let me know to keep going. Heimler out.