Issue: Lopez brought a handgun to school, violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
Law in Question: Gun-Free School Zones Act, a federal law prohibiting gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school.
Constitutional Challenge
Central Question: Whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act was within Congress's enumerated powers.
Key Doctrine: Substantial Effects Doctrine.
Origin: Adopted during the New Deal era (US v. Darby, Wickard v. Filburn).
Justification: Invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate non-commerce and intrastate activities based on their substantial effects on interstate commerce.
Supreme Court Decision
Outcome: 5-4 decision; the Act was found unconstitutional.
Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Ruling: Limited the Substantial Effects Doctrine to economic activity.
Implication: Congress could regulate intrastate economic activity affecting interstate commerce, but not non-economic activities.
Dissent
Position: The dissenters believed Congress had not exceeded its powers.
Critique: Majority argued that the dissenters provided no limiting principle for Congress's commerce power.
Significance
Impact: First instance in 60 years where the Supreme Court found Congress exceeded its powers.
Rehnquist Court Perception: Seen as rolling back congressional powers from the New Deal era, though this is debated.
Legal Implication: Required advocates to present a judicially-administrable limiting principle for Congress’s power post-Lopez.