Federalism, School Safety, and Congress Gun Control (United States v. Alfonso Lopez)

American Bar Association Division for Public Education Student

Facts

In 1990 Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which made it a federal crime to bring a gun on a school campus or within 1,000 feet of school grounds. Concern about crime and school violence had led to the passage of several laws by Congress making funds available for school-safety programs, drug and gang prevention, and electronic monitors. On March 10, 1992, Alfonso Lopez, a 12th-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, was caught with a 38-caliber handgun on the school grounds. He had the gun so that he could sell it to another student for use in gang activities. He was arrested and initially charged with violation of a Texas criminal law prohibiting guns in school. Similar laws had been enacted by about 40 states. These state charges were dropped when the federal government decided to prosecute Lopez under the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Lopez was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail and a two-year probation. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that it is beyond the power of Congress under the Constitution’s commerce clause to regulate gun use in local schools and that the regulation of guns is an issue better left to local and state governments. The Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez’s position and reversed the conviction. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided it in April 1995. Issue: The Supreme Court was asked to decide the case on the basis of whether Congress may use its power to regulate commerce to punish a person who brings guns to school or whether this is an area reserved to the states for lawmaking.

Although the case involved the federal government’s control of handguns, the Second Amendment was not raised. If you were a Supreme Court Justice, which of the two opinions (Handout 2) would you agree with? One of the opinions is a summary of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, the other the dissenting opinion. After discussion, your teacher will identify the majority and dissenting opinions. American Bar Association Division for Public Education Student Handout 1 Page 2 of 2 Vocabulary federalism—division and sharing of power and authority between a general, nationwide government and two or more constituent (i.e., state) governments powers—legal abilities or authority to act finding—a determination of a bill’s intended effect intergovernmental relations—relationships of cooperation, competition, coordination, and/or collusion among federal, state, and local governments.

Judicial Opinions

Opinion A The Gun-Free School Zones Act is unconstitutional. The power of Congress to pass a law under the commerce clause is limited. This act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession of a gun be connected in any way to interstate commerce. The Constitution created a national government of limited and specified powers. The sharing of power between the federal government and the states, known as federalism, allows states to adopt different approaches to social problems and regulatory activities. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, and this power is very broad. However, there are limitations on Congress’s power under the commerce clause. According to an early Supreme Court decision, commerce is not intended to include internal state activities that do not extend to or affect other states. In fact, about 40 states have enacted a law similar to the School Gun-Free Zones Act. The states have also been free to experiment with other methods of preventing school violence, such as metal detectors and peer-mediation programs. The national government should not interfere with these activities under an extremely broad definition of commerce. Congress may regulate three broad categories of activity under its commerce power. First, it may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, it has the power to regulate and protect interstate commerce even though a threat to it may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, it has the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce. However, Congress may not use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or local activities. The power of Congress to enact the Gun-Free School Zones Act cannot be derived from the first two categories. The act does not regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce, nor does it attempt to regulate local activities that threaten interstate commerce. Thus, only the third category can be applied as a test of Congress’s power in the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Is the act a regulation of an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce? No, the Gun-Free School Zones Act is an act to regulate a local activity. It is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity affecting interstate commerce. The regulation of a state or local activity that has little interstate economic impact is best left to the states.

Opinion B Under the powers given to it by the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress is empowered to enact the Gun-Free School Zones Act. This act is an attempt to reduce violence harming the educational system. The impact of crime on our schools has a substantial effect on the national economy that Congress may address. Three basic principles of the commerce clause support the act. First, Congress may regulate local activities that significantly affect interstate commerce. Its power over commerce is broad and complete. Second, when a local activity has a significant effect on interstate commerce, Congress must consider the cumulative effect of all similar activities (the effect of all guns possessed in or near schools). Third, Congress must have a degree of leeway in determining a significant connection between an activity and interstate commerce for two reasons. The Constitution delegates commerce power directly to Congress. The balance of power between the states and the federal government is essentially a political question best left to the Congress to decide. Congress has found that violent crime in school zones affects the quality of education and, in turn, will significantly affect the country’s economic interests. Many studies show that the serious problem of guns in and around schools is widespread.

For example, 12 percent of urban high school students have had guns fired at them, and 20 percent of those students have been threatened with guns. In any 6-month period, several hundred thousand children are victims of violent crimes in or near school. Studies also show that violence in schools significantly interferes with educational quality. School violence has been linked to high dropout rates and lower achievement. Congress could, therefore, conclude that guns contribute substantially to this educational problem. Congress could have also found that gun-related violence in and around schools is a commercial, as well as a human, problem. There is a clear link between the amount of schooling and potential earnings. Better educated workers make our country more competitive, and most job growth can be attributed to better educated workers. Also, the business of schooling makes up an important part of our economy. In 1990, primary and secondary schools spent $230 billion—a significant portion of that year’s $5.5 trillion Gross Domestic Product. As government and economic issues become more complex, Congress is in the best position to determine what issues need a uniform national approach. The Gun-Free School Zones Act is consistent with the evolving definition of federalism. For use with the article Federalism, School Safety, and Congress, written by Frank Kopecky, a professor of legal studies at the University of Illinois—Springfield and editor of the Illinois State Bar Association LawRelated Education

Questions

1. Why do you think the opinion you chose is better? _________________________________________________________________

2. Are there additional reasons you would like to add to support your position? _________________________________________________________________

3. How do you think the U.S. Supreme Court actually decided this case? _________________________________________________________________ 4

4. If you favored the decision that was the dissenting opinion, does that mean your position is wrong? _________________________________________________________________

For use with the article Federalism, School Safety, and Congress, written by Frank Kopecky, a professor of legal studies at the University of Illinois—Springfield and editor of the Illinois State Bar Association LawRelated Education Newsletter. It first appeared in Update on Law-Related Education, 19.3, © 1995 American Bar Association.