Lesson 1.9 · Unit 1 · CED topic 1.8
The Commerce Clause and United States v. Lopez
McCulloch expanded national power. Later courts did not always agree on how far to go. The Commerce Clause, which lets Congress regulate commerce among the states, became the most important source of national power in the twentieth century, and for decades the Court read it broadly. In 1995, in United States v. Lopez, the Court drew a line. This lesson also covers the Fourteenth Amendment, the second great source of national power over the states, and shows how each court interpretation can move the balance.
Learning objective.
- 1.8.A. Explain how the balance of power between national and state governments has changed over time based on interpretations of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Essential knowledge.
- 1.8.A.1. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment give the national government the power to enforce protections for any person against the states, but Supreme Court interpretations can influence the extent of those protections.
- 1.8.A.2. The Commerce Clause gives the national government the power to regulate interstate commerce, but Supreme Court interpretations can influence the extent of this power.
Two sources of national power
The Commerce Clause. Article I, Section 8 lets Congress "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." During the New Deal and civil rights eras, Congress used this clause to regulate labor, agriculture, and discrimination in businesses open to the public. The Court mostly accepted that the economy is national and that activities with a substantial effect on interstate commerce could be regulated.
The Fourteenth Amendment. Ratified in 1868, it forbids states from denying any person due process or equal protection of the laws, and Section 5 lets Congress enforce those protections. This gave the national government power to protect individuals against their own state governments. The extent of that power depends on how the Supreme Court interprets the clauses, and later lessons show the Court using them to apply the Bill of Rights to the states and to end segregation.
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Facts. A twelfth-grade student, Alfonso Lopez, carried a concealed handgun into a high school in San Antonio, Texas. He was charged under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, a federal law that made possessing a gun in a school zone a crime.
Issue. Did Congress exceed its power under the Commerce Clause when it made possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime?
Holding. Yes. The Court held 5 to 4 that the law was unconstitutional.
Reasoning. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the Commerce Clause has limits. Possessing a gun near a school is not itself economic activity, and the connection the government offered, that violence harms education and the economy, was too remote. If the Court accepted that reasoning, almost anything could be regulated by Congress, and the distinction between national and local power would disappear. Crime and education were traditionally areas of state authority.
Lopez was the first time in about sixty years that the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding the Commerce Clause. It did not reverse earlier cases, but it signaled that the Court would police the boundaries of national power.
Reading the shifts
| Interpretation | Effect on the balance |
|---|---|
| Broad reading of the Commerce Clause (New Deal onward) | Expands national power |
| Lopez (1995) | Limits national power over non-economic local activity |
| Broad reading of the Fourteenth Amendment | Expands national power to protect individuals from states |
The idea to carry forward is that the balance of power is not fixed in the text. It moves with Supreme Court interpretations of the same clauses.
Question. Compare the reasoning in United States v. Lopez with the reasoning in McCulloch v. Maryland about the limits of national power.
Model. Both cases ask how far Congress may go beyond the literal list of powers. In McCulloch, the Court read the Necessary and Proper Clause broadly and let Congress use implied powers to create a national bank, which expanded national power. In Lopez, the Court read the Commerce Clause more narrowly and held that Congress could not ban guns near schools, because the activity was not economic and the link to interstate commerce was too weak. The difference is that McCulloch confirmed that national power can be broad when means are tied to enumerated powers, and Lopez set a limit when the activity regulated was local and non-economic.
Scenario. Congress passes a law making it a federal crime to possess a certain item within a thousand feet of any public building. The law does not mention commerce, and the item has no connection to business. A defendant argues Congress lacks the power.
Question. Explain how United States v. Lopez supports the defendant.
Model. In Lopez, the Court struck down a federal law that criminalized gun possession in school zones, holding that the activity was not economic and its connection to interstate commerce was too remote. The defendant can argue that the same is true here: possession near a building is not economic activity, and the law does not show a link to commerce. Under Lopez, the Commerce Clause may not support the law, and regulating local conduct of this kind has traditionally belonged to states.
Be ready to compare Lopez with another case on a SCOTUS Comparison question: name the clause (Commerce), the facts (gun near a school), the holding (law invalid), and the reasoning (not economic, link too weak). Also know that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses give the national government power to protect individuals from the states.
- Which clause of the Constitution was at the center of United States v. Lopez?
Show answer
The Commerce Clause.
- What federal law did Lopez challenge?
Show answer
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made gun possession in a school zone a federal crime.
- What was the holding in Lopez?
Show answer
Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power, so the law was unconstitutional.
- Why did the Court think the link to commerce was too weak?
Show answer
Gun possession near a school is not economic activity, and accepting the government's argument would let Congress regulate almost anything.
- Which two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment let the national government protect people from the states?
Show answer
The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
- Why does the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause matter for federalism?
Show answer
A broader reading expands national power over states, and a narrower reading protects state authority.