U.S. V. LOPEZ 514 U.S.

549
(1995)
Case Summary

Abstract
A landmark Supreme Court case decided 5-4 on April 26, 1995 deeming the Gun Free School
Zone Act of 1990 to be unconstitutional as Congress had overreached its authority under the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Meghan Ciacchella/Katherine Olenczuk

ciacchella@oakland.edu or kolenczuk@oakland.edu
 U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

INTRODUCTION
On April 26, 1995, the majority of Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States ruled
on a critical decision in the case of the United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This landmark
case continues to be regarded as one of both unprecedented historical importance for the United
States of America and one of Constitutional importance that continues to endure political debate
in the court arenas today.
United States v. Lopez began in San Antonio, Texas in 1992 and found its way to the
Supreme Court of the United States in 1995. The momentous decision of its 5-4 ruling has stirred
debate regarding Congress’s jurisdiction and its authority to regulate, gun control legislation (such
as the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990), 2 amendment right limitations, as well as state control
nd

versus federal control in the areas concerning commerce and other critical political decisions.
United States v. Lopez that initiated in Texas was groundbreaking in many ways. This case
proved to be one that ultimately checked the powers of Congressional authority by upholding the
appellate court’s previous decision that deemed the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 §922(q)
unconstitutional and agreed that Congress had overreached with its powers under the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution. The ruling in United States v. Lopez was the first of its kind in several
decades that the Judicial Branch of the government found the legislative branch in violation of
overstepping their jurisdiction with the passing of the Gun Free School Zone Act legislation in
1990. The political repercussions continued to greatly impact judicial decisions since its ruling in
1995.
FACTS OF THE CASE
• On March 10, 1992 Alfonso Lopez, a high school senior walked into his Texas high school
with a concealed .38 caliber (unloaded) and five bullets.
• Lopez was confronted by school authorities (after an anonymous tip) and admitted he had
the gun.
• He was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises.
• Those charges were dropped the next day and Lopez was charged with a federal crime
under the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990
• Lopez was indicted on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone.
• He moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds the GFSZA was unconstitutional since
control of public schools is beyond the power of Congress.
• The District Court denied the motion and Lopez was convicted and sentenced to six months
in prison and two years of probation.
• Lopez challenged the conviction in the Fifth District appellate court of Texas, based on his
claim that the GFSZA exceeds the power of Congress.
• The Fifth District Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez and reversed the conviction.

Ciacchella/Olenczuk 1
 U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

• The Federal Government claimed it had the authority to ban guns in schools under its
commerce power (Commerce Clause; United States Constitution) and brought the case to
the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court upheld the reversal in a 5-4 vote with the opinion that GFSZA was
• beyond the powers of Congress. SCOTUS argued economic activity in this case was NOT
substantially affected by possession of a gun in a school zone.

LEGAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

On March 10, 1992, Alfonso Lopez Jr., a senior who attended Edison High School in San
Antonio, Texas, was arrested for bringing a concealed .38 caliber-style handgun to school along
with five bullets. Upon receiving an anonymous tip, Lopez was arrested by Texas authority on
grounds of violation of a Texas statute (Penal Code AM § 46.03(a)(1)) that made it illegal to
possess a firearm on school grounds. Alfonso Lopez Jr. admitted to possessing and carrying a
weapon to school. On March 11, 1992, Texas authority dismissed state charges against Lopez
with federal agents instead formally charge Alfonso Lopez Jr. with a federal violation of the Gun
Free School Zone Act of 1990 § 922(q).
Upon his date in Federal District court, Alfonso Lopez Jr. and his criminal defense
attorneys, “entered a plea of not guilty.” A federal grand jury indicted Lopez on one count of
“knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone, in violation of §922(q)” (Rehnquist, p.
2). Alfonso Lopez and his defense team then moved to dismiss the indictment charges on grounds
that §922(q) was unconstitutional and was beyond Congress’ control to “legislate over public
schools” (Rehnquist, p.2). This motion was in turn denied and the District Court declared §922(q)
“a constitutional exercise of Congress’ well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting
commerce” continuing that this act therein “affects interstate commerce” (Rehnquist, p.2). After
the motion for dismissal was denied, Alfonso Lopez Jr. then “waived his rights to a jury trial” and
the court proceedings continued with a bench trial thereafter. The Federal District Court’s verdict
went on to find Lopez guilty of violation of §922(q) and “sentenced him to six months’
imprisonment and two years’ supervised” probation (Rehnquist, p. 2).
Alfonso Lopez Jr. appealed his case to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit claiming
§922(q) was unconstitutional and it had “exceeded Congress’ power to legislate under the
Commerce Clause” (Rehnquist, p. 2). The Court of Appeals’ verdict agreed with the defendant
and reversed the decision from the lower court. The U.S. government then in turn appealed once
more to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case beginning in 1994. On
April 26, 1995 the case of U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was decided and the majority of
Supreme Court Justices granted certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s
judgment finding §922(q) of the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 to be unconstitutional.

MAIN LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CASE

United States v. Lopez presented many issues of legality that continue to be political points
of debate today. Although the main legal issues in this case began with violation of the Gun Free

Ciacchella/Olenczuk 2
 U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

School Zone Act of 1990 §922(q) and the Commerce Clause, this case ultimately seemed to
question Congress’ Constitutional regulatory authority. The Supreme Court case of United States
v. Lopez, proved to be a landmark case that demonstrated the use of the Judicial Branch’s ability
to utilize Checks and Balances over the Legislative Branch’s power in regards to gun control.
The first issue addressed in this court case resided with the Gun Free School Zone Act of
1990 §922(q) (ACT). This gun act, according to the F.B.I.’s website, originally banned
“possession of firearms within an elementary or secondary school, on school property, or within
1,000 feet of school property.” It also defined a “school zone” as “(1) in, or on the grounds of, a
public, parochial, or private school or (2) within 1,000 feet from the grounds of such a school.” It
was first passed under the “Crime Control Act of 1990.”
The second legal issue under fire in this historical Supreme Court case particularly dealt
with the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. This clause from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of
the United States Constitution, authorized Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” As in the case of United States v. Lopez,
the Majority of Justices confirmed that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate
“use of channels of interstate commerce,” “to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate
commerce or persons or things in interstate commerce,” and to “commence authority or power to
regulate activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce” (Rehnquist, p.
6). However, the gray area in question with this case resonated with the definition of whether or
not activity was “substantially affected” or impacted interstate commerce enough to justify
Congress’ authority to regulate under this clause.
In the case of the United States v. Lopez, Lopez was charged with violation of this ACT
under §922(q). The Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that §922(q) was a criminal
statute and had nothing to do with commerce. In addition, §922(q) according to the Majority,
contained “no jurisdictional element which would ensure that firearm possessions affects interstate
commerce” (Rehnquist, p. 8). The Supreme Court in this case against Lopez, argued that
“economic activity was not substantially affected by possession of a gun in a school zone” thus
deeming this ACT unconstitutional and affirming the previous Circuit Court’s ruling.
The government acting as plaintiff in the United States v. Lopez claimed that the Commerce
Clause did impact the commerce “substantially” citing references to numerous
examples. According to the government, they claimed that “costs of violent crimes are
substantial” and that “insurance alone would directly affect economy and population” (Rehnquist,
p. 9). In addition, the government argued a case that “violent crimes reduced travel to areas of the
country perceived as ‘unsafe’” (Rehnquist, p. 9). Lastly, the government made a case arguing that
gun violence and “potential guns in school hinders and threatens learning environment” thus
“handicapping the educational process” which in turn “affected economy and commerce”
(Rehnquist, p. 9). In United States v. Lopez, the Majority ruled and affirmed the appellate court’s
previous ruling arguing that in the case against Lopez, economic activity was not “substantially
affected” by possession of a gun in a school zone. Furthermore,
The other issues that ultimately appeared in the case of the United States v. Lopez included
political debates about gun control, 2nd amendment rights, and Congressional authority to regulate
in state affairs. This process continues to fuel political discussions and court cases on federalism,
gun control, school safety, and many other topics impacting additional legislation proposed and
Federal court rulings.

Ciacchella/Olenczuk 3
 U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

COURT RULING AND RATIONALE

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s reversal of Alfonso Lopez’s conviction in
a 5-4 vote. The court provided three main reasons for their decision. First, they argued that
economic activity in this case was not substantially affected by the possession of a gun in a school
zone (Rehnquist, p. 563). They claimed that §922(q) was a criminal statute and had nothing to do
with “commerce.” Second, §922(q) contained no “jurisdictional element” which would ensure that
firearm possession affects interstate commerce (Rehnquist, p. 561). Finally, they argued that the
Gun Free School Zones Act would give Congress too much power to regulate and then leave other
areas for Congress to “overstep” and regulate as well (Rehnquist, p. 567).

DISSENTING OPINION
The ruling was opposed by four members of SCOTUS, including Justices Breyer, Stevens,
Ginsberg and Souter. They argued that the issue of guns in school zones was indeed a matter that
affects commerce. Their theory was that gun violence in the United States was a “real threat” and
has adverse effects on classroom learning. The education of U.S. citizens has a direct impact on
the country’s economic health thus demonstrating significant impact on trade and commerce
(Breyer, p. 620). They further argued that guns are articles of commerce and articles that can be
used to restrain commerce and that their presence is the consequence of commercial activity
(Breyer, p. 629)

WHY IS THIS CASE RELEVANT?

The importance of the case rests in the question of how much power should be granted to
Congress and which issues should be addressed at the state and local levels. Education has
traditionally been under state jurisdiction. Does the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 set a
precedence for the overreach of federal power? Will this ultimately give Congress “general
police powers” and begin to overreach and regulate areas like curriculum, family issues, etc.?
The GFSZA was revised as a result of the ruling in U.S. v Lopez. Following the Lopez
decision, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were
adopted in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104–
208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996. These changes required that the firearm in
question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.” As nearly all firearms have
moved in interstate commerce at some point in their existence, critics assert this was merely a
legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.
The lack of clarity in the Commerce Act gives Congress the ability to create legislation
that may blur the lines of federalism. It is quite likely that cases like this one will continue to
come before the Supreme Court.
REFERENCES
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-
court-cases-elessons/us-v-lopez-1995/

http://fbinicsystem.com/federal-and-us-gun-laws/gun-free-school-zones-act-of-1990.html

Ciacchella/Olenczuk 4
 U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/foundations-of-
american-democracy/constitutional-interpretations-of-federalism/a/us-v-lopez-1995

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause

https://legaldictionary.net/united-states-v-lopez/

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/27/us/high-court-kills-law-banning-guns-in-a-school-
zone.html

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_us.html

https://www.thoughtco.com/united-states-v-lopez-4584312

Message to the Congress Transmitting Proposed Legislation to Amend the Gun-Free School
Zones Act of 1990, The American Presidency Project
Safra, Seth J. (November 2000). "The Amended Gun-Free School Zones Act: Doubt as to Its
Constitutionality Remains". Duke Law Journal. 50 (2): 637–662. JSTOR 1373099

Ciacchella/Olenczuk 5