Student’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
United States v Lopez
Background of the Case
Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., a 12th-grade student, carried a revolver and five bullets to school on 10th March 1992. He wanted to deliver the revolver to someone else and be paid $44. The revolver did not have bullets inside. School authorities got aware of the revolver and called the police. The respondent was arrested and initially charged with possessing a firearm inside school premises but the charge was increased to an offence under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The specific provision was Section 922 of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The trial court convicted Lopez. Lopez lodged an appeal at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on grounds that Congress did not have authority to make legislation under the Commerce Clause. The appellate court ruled in favour of Lopez and overturned his conviction (United States v Lopez).
The United States filed a petition against Lopez at the United States Supreme Court. The court decided the case on 26th April 1996 (United States v Lopez).
Federalism
The case is a federal matter. Congress had added itself too much authority and jurisdiction in enacting the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 under the Commerce Clause by attempting to control various state issues such as possession of firearms in schools. This was a matter that could have been heard at the United States Supreme Court (Smith 1467).
Majority Opinion of the United States Supreme Court
The majority decision was delivered by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy and Justice Clarence Thomas were part of the majority opinion (United States v Lopez).
The Supreme Court held that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. The court also held that carrying a firearm to a school is not an income-generating activity (United States v Lopez).
Minority Opinion
Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Gerald Breyer and David Hackett Souter wrote their own dissenting opinions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephens and Justice Souter joined Justice Breyer’s opinion (United States v Lopez).
In the minority opinion, the dissenting judges stated that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was constitutional (United States v Lopez).
Rationale of the Majority Opinion
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that Section 922(q) of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was not in accordance with the Constitution because Congress had exceeded its power under the Commercial Clause by making a law that was in reference to a matter under the jurisdiction of states. The issue of carrying guns was deemed to be a state issue and not a federal issue to which Congress could make legislation (United States v Lopez).
The Supreme Court also held that carrying a firearm to school is not an economic activity under the Commerce Clause. The court stated that Section 922(q) of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is a criminal clause (United States v Lopez).
The Supreme Court relied on cases such as Gibbons v Ogden, Veazie v Moor, Kidd v Pearson, Wickard v Filburn, United States v E.C. Knight Co. and others (United States v Lopez).
Rationale of the Minority Opinion
The dissenting judges stated that Congress did not exceed its power by making the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Congress had power to make legislation to govern states on matters relating to the Commerce Clause. Congress protected children in school from guns the same way it protects children in school from alcohol. The dissenting judges also stated that Congress was right to assume jurisdiction over the matter relating to guns in schools (Lessig 142).
Conclusion
The majority judgment was a fair one. Congress ought to be checked so that it does not exceed its power by legislating issues that are under the jurisdiction of states. Allowing Congress to do so would be setting bad precedent.
Works Cited
Lessig, Lawrence. “Translating Federalism: United States v Lopez.” The Supreme Court Review (1995): 125-215.
Smith, Rachel Elizabeth. “United States v Lopez: Reaffirming the Federal Commerce Power and Remembering Federalism.” Catholic University Law Review (1996): 1459-1506.
United States v Lopez. No. 1624. United States Supreme Court. 26 April 1995.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.