For most of US history, the Supreme Court has sided with the federal government when there were conflicts between state laws and federal laws. The federal government has been able to expand into a lot of other powers that aren't specifically laid out in the Constitution because of these Supreme Court decisions. However, this dynamic came to a halt in 1992 with the case of United States v. Lopez, when the Supreme Court ruled against the federal government and said that it had overstepped its authority.
Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for free.
Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken
Jetzt kostenlos anmeldenNie wieder prokastinieren mit unseren Lernerinnerungen.
Jetzt kostenlos anmeldenFor most of US history, the Supreme Court has sided with the federal government when there were conflicts between state laws and federal laws. The federal government has been able to expand into a lot of other powers that aren't specifically laid out in the Constitution because of these Supreme Court decisions. However, this dynamic came to a halt in 1992 with the case of United States v. Lopez, when the Supreme Court ruled against the federal government and said that it had overstepped its authority.
In March 1992, a high-schooler named Alfonso Lopez walked into his school with a gun in his backpack, setting off a series of events that would mark the first major Supreme Court case limiting the federal government's power. While he was arrested for having a gun on campus, the case isn't actually a gun control case: the case of United States v. Lopez centers around the Commerce Clause.
Before we get into the details of the case, let's talk about the Commerce Clause.
The issue of gun control was traditionally viewed as a reserved power, which is a power that only the state government has. The Constitution clarifies a list of powers (called enumerated powers) that Congress has. These include things like coining money, declaring war, etc. (see Enumerated and Implied Powers for more information!).
The 10th Amendment says that any powers not given to Congress would be reserved for the state governments.
However, the Constitution also allows a lot of wiggle room for the federal government under the Necessary and Proper Clause (also called the Elastic Clause). This provision is where we find the implied powers. The Necessary and Proper Clause says that Congress has the authority to pass anything "necessary and proper" that they need in order to carry out the rest of the list.
Federal Government | State Government |
Enumerated and Implied Powers | Reserved Powers |
The Constitution also includes something called the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause often work hand in hand when the federal government is trying to regulate something that isn't specified in the Constitution. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to pass laws related to commerce with foreign nations and among the states.
Lastly, the Supremacy Clause clarified that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," meaning that federal laws take precedence over state laws.
Constitutional Provision | Interpretation |
Commerce Clause | Gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce. |
Necessary and Proper Clause | Gives the federal government the power to regulate anything needed to fulfill its other duties, even if it isn't specifically listed in the Constitution |
Supremacy Clause | Gives the federal government supremacy over state laws if there's a conflict. |
Federalism was a major debate when the delegates at the Constitutional Convention met in 1787. The states were used to having a lot of authority, and they didn't want a central authority to come in and tell them how to run their own state. But they knew some sort of central government was needed.
Before the Constitution, the newly independent country was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which created a very weak central government. The Articles of Confederation had a lot of problems, especially around managing the country's debts from the war and regulating interstate commerce.
Many antifederalists were afraid that Congress could take the Commerce Clause too far and use it to justify practically whatever they wanted, while federalists were adamant that it was necessary. Without the power to regulate commerce, interstate trade and travel would devolve into chaos, just like it had under the Articles.
McCulloch v. Maryland was the first time that the federal government's authority was tested. The case was between a bank teller for the newly created national bank and the state of Maryland. The states felt threatened by the national bank and tried to tax them out of existence, arguing that creating a national bank was outside of the federal government's authority. When the case went to the Supreme Court, the justices ruled in favor of the federal government. They said that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave the federal government the power create a national bank.
A series of other cases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries (Gonzalez v. Raich, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Gibbons v. Ogden, etc.) also saw the Supreme Court ruling in the federal government's favor.
The federal government's 150-year winning streak came to a close with the United States v. Lopez case.
Congress passed the Gun-Free School Act of 1990 citing their authority under the Commerce Clause. The law prohibited bringing a firearm onto a school campus in all 50 states.
When Alfonso Lopez brought a gun onto school property, he was arrested because of a Texas law prohibiting guns on school property. However, because there was also a federal law in place, the state dropped the charges and the federal government ended up pressing charges.
Lopez was initially sentenced to six months in prison. His lawyers appealed the case, saying that the federal government didn't have the authority to make the Gun-Free School Zone Act in the first place. They argued that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate gun control and that only states had that power. Eventually, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Gun-Free School Zone Act was invalid, prompting a review by the Supreme Court.
On April 26, 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gun-Free Zone Act did violate the Constitution.
Lawyers for the United States said that the act is valid because of the Commerce Clause. They argued that guns in schools lead to more violence, which then impacts commerce in two ways:
Out of the nine Supreme Court judges, 5 ruled in the majority opinion, making it a tight case that ultimately ruled against the federal government. They argued that regulating gun control was reserved for the states and that the Commerce Clause did not provide the government with enough authority to enact the Gun-Free Zone Act.
Four out of the five judges dissented with the ruling. They looked at the cumulative effect of gun violence and felt that a law preventing such actions would be appropriate under the Commerce Clause. They argued that the effect of gun violence rose to a substantial level that would warrant the federal government stepping in to mitigate its effect on interstate commerce.
As a result of the ruling, the Gun-Free School Zone Act was struck down. After the ruling, the federal government was able to pass a new version of the law that required proof for each case that it impacted interstate commerce.
The decision was the first time since 1937 that the Supreme Court had ruled against the federal government's expansion of power using the Commerce Clause.
The dissenting opinion felt that the threat of gun violence was substantive enough to commerce to warrant its regulation under the Commerce Clause.
It was the first major case where the Supreme Court ruled against the federal government's expansion of power.
Alfonso Lopez (a high school student who was arrested for bringing a gun to school), Lopez's lawyers, the United States lawyers, and the Supreme Court.
United States v. Lopez shifted power away from the federal government, saying that only state governments had the authority to regulate gun control.
It was the first major case where the Supreme Court ruled against the federal government's expansion of power.
True or false: The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to regulate gun control
False
The Constitution gives powers that are not explicitly given to the federal government to
the states
What type of power does the Constitution give states?
Reserve powers
Were the federalists or antifederalists in favor of the Commerce Clause?
Federalists
The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to
regulate commerce among the states
Throughout most of US history until US v. Lopez, Supreme Court cases tended to favor
federalism and the expansion of Congress's implied powers
Already have an account? Log in
Open in AppThe first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!
Sign up with Email Sign up with AppleBy signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.
Already have an account? Log in
Already have an account? Log in
The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
Already have an account? Log in