What is the significance of united states v. lopez

The Court held that intrastate activities that "have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions" are within Congress' power to regulate. In United States v. Darby , U. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

See also United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. In Wickard v. Filburn , the Court upheld the application of amendments to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of to the production and consumption of home grown wheat. The Wickard Court explicitly rejected earlier distinctions between direct and indirect effects on interstate commerce, stating:. The Wickard Court emphasized that although Filburn's own contribution to the demand for wheat may have been trivial by itself, that was not "enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.

In part, this was a recognition of the great changes that had occurred in the way business was carried on in this country. Enterprises that had once been local or at most regional in nature had become national in scope. But the doctrinal change also reflected a view that earlier Commerce Clause cases artificially had constrained the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

But even these modern era precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits. Since that time, the Court has heeded that warning and undertaken to decide whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce.

McClung , U. Similarly, in Maryland v. Wirtz , U. Usery , U. In response to the dissent's warnings that the Court was powerless to enforce the limitations on Congress' commerce powers because "[a]ll activities affecting commerce, even in the minutest degree, [Wickard], may be regulated and controlled by Congress," U. Rather, "[t]he Court has said only that where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce , the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.

Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. Perez v. United States , supra , at ; see also Hodel v. First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.

Wirtz , supra , at , n. Within this final category, admittedly, our case law has not been clear whether an activity must "affect" or "substantially affect" interstate commerce in order to be within Congress' power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause.

Compare Preseault v. ICC , U. We conclude, consistent with the great weight of our case law, that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce. First, we have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce.

Examples include the regulation of intrastate coal mining; Hodel , supra , intrastate extortionate credit transactions, Perez , supra , restaurants utilizing substantial interstate supplies, McClung , supra, inns and hotels catering to interstate guests, Heart of Atlanta Motel , supra , and production and consumption of home grown wheat, Wickard v.

These examples are by no means exhaustive, but the pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained. Even Wickard , which is perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate activity, involved economic activity in a way that the possession of a gun in a school zone does not.

Roscoe Filburn operated a small farm in Ohio, on which, in the year involved, he raised 23 acres of wheat.

It was his practice to sow winter wheat in the fall, and after harvesting it in July to sell a portion of the crop, to feed part of it to poultry and livestock on the farm, to use some in making flour for home consumption, and to keep the remainder for seeding future crops. The Secretary of Agriculture assessed a penalty against him under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of because he harvested about 12 acres more wheat than his allotment under the Act permitted.

The Act was designed to regulate the volume of wheat moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages, and concomitant fluctuation in wheat prices, which had previously obtained.

The Court said, in an opinion sustaining the application of the Act to Filburn's activity:. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions.

This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases.

But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Ogden , in which the Supreme Court ruled that Congress, and not the states, had ultimate authority over navigation.

Oral argument was held on Nov 8, The case was decided on Apr 26, The Supreme Court ruled that the possession of firearms in schools did not fit the definition of interstate commerce, and so the law was unconstitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.

The decision in Gibbons v. Ogden , which had affirmed this power, had also acknowledged its limits. In that ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the following about the enumerated powers of Congress:. Other important cases in the development of interstate commerce jurisprudence, such as United States v. Darby and NLRB v. Darby set the precedent that Congress could regulate intrastate activity that had a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, which would play a key part in United States v.

In light of the judicial history of interstate commerce, Chief Justice Rehnquist identified "three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce Rehnquist concluded that the possession of firearms in schools must fall under the third category.

He also noted that the historical case law did not provide clear guidelines as to which intrastate activities substantially affected interstate commerce. Several earlier cases, including Wickard v. Filburn , had identified specific examples of such activities. Rehnquist argued that these cases identified a clear pattern, that "Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.

The Government attempted to argue that firearms in schools could result in violent crime and harm to the educational environment of students, which would indirectly harm the national economy.

Rehnquist rejected these arguments, claiming that to accept them would give Congress a "general police power of the sort retained by the States" and would eliminate the distinction between national and local.

Here, he echoed the logic of Justice Benjamin Cardozo in his concurring opinion in A. Schechter Poultry Corp. United States , who had expressed similar concerns about the National Recovery Administration. Rehnquist concluded that the act overstepped the boundaries of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, so the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy expressed a desire to add his own observations to the Court's ruling.

He drew two relevant lessons from the history of interstate commerce jurisprudence:. He concluded that the Supreme Court played a critical role in maintaining the system of federalism , of which debates over the boundaries between inter- and intrastate commerce were a critical part.

Learn more about the different ways you can partner with the Bill of Rights Institute. The Bill of Rights Institute engages, educates, and empowers individuals with a passion for the freedom and opportunity that exist in a free society. High school senior Alfonso Lopez walked into his San Antonio high school carrying a concealed weapon.

He was charged with violating a Texas law that banned firearms in schools. The next day, the state charges against him were dismissed after he was charged with violating a federal law: the Gun Free School Zones Act. He was sentenced to six months in prison followed by two years probation. Schools were controlled by state and local governments and were not under the authority of the federal government.

Since and until United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court had consistently upheld, and greatly expanded, Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. Knight and Schechter Poultry v. United States , for example, that the Commerce Clause only permits federal regulation of the buying, selling, and transportation of goods between states, not over the manufacture of goods within states, even if that manufacture was closely related to interstate commerce.

Yet in the late s the Supreme Court greatly changed course, ruling that federal laws regulating the local production of goods "substantially affected" interstate commerce and was therefore constitutional. By the s and s, in fact, the Court ruled that laws banning segregation in roadside motels and restaurants and outlawing local practices of loan sharking "substantially affected" interstate commerce and were constitutional.