# United States v. Lopez > Supreme Court of the United States · April 26, 1995 · 514 U.S. 549 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433133 ## Case - **Full name:** United States v. Lopez - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** April 26, 1995 - **Citations:** 514 U.S. 549; 115 S. Ct. 1624; 131 L. Ed. 2d 626; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 3039 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Stevens - **Judges:** Rehnquist, O'Con-Nor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg - **Cited by:** 2,695 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by United States v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 657 (1999). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 4 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433133 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that when “considerable disagreement exists about how to best accomplish [a] goal, ... the theory and utility of our federalism are revealed, for the States may perform their role as laboratories for experimentation to devise various solutions where the best solution i… - finding that the statute, which did not contain an element that ensured a case-by-case examination of a federal connection, “by its terms has nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms.... It cannot ... be sus… - stating that if Congress were to assume control over areas of traditional state concern, “the boundaries between the spheres of federal and state authority would blur and political responsibility would become illusory. The resultant inability to hold either branch of the gover… - holding that knowing possession of a firearm in a school zone "by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms" and then "[s]econd" in its analysis observing that the statute "contains no jurisdict… - explaining that, because GFSZA was “a criminal statute” having “nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise,” it could not “be sustained under [the Court’s] cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial trans… ## Opinion text Justice Stevens, dissenting. The welfare of our future “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, is vitally dependent on the character of the education of our children. I therefore agree entirely with Justice Breyer’s explanation of why Congress has ample power to prohibit the possession of firearms in or near schools — just as it may protect the school environment from harms posed by controlled substances such as asbestos or alcohol. I also agree with Justice Souter’s exposition of the radical character of the Court’s holding and its kinship with the discredited, pre-Depression version of substantive due process. Cf. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 , 4 05-411 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting). I believe, however, that the Court’s extraordinary decision merits this additional comment. Guns are both articles of commerce and articles that can be used to restrain commerce. Their possession is the con *603 sequence, either directly or indirectly, of commercial activity. In my judgment, Congress’ power to regulate commerce in firearms includes the power to prohibit possession of guns at any location because of their potentially harmful use; it necessarily follows that Congress may also prohibit their possession in particular markets. The market for the possession of handguns by school-age children is, distressingly, substantial. * Whether or not the national interest in eliminating that market would have justified federal legislation in 1789, it surely does today. Indeed, there is evidence that firearm manufacturers — aided by a federal grant — are specifically targeting schoolchildren as consumers by distributing, at schools, hunting-related videos styled “educational materials for grades four through 12,” Herbert, Reading, Writing, Reloading, N. Y. Times, Dec. 14, 1994, p. A23, col. 1. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433133. Public record. Not legal advice.