U.S. v. Lopez (1995) established precedent when the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause did not extend to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The case began with Alfonso Lopez, a senior at a San Antonio, Texas high school, carried a concealed weapon into the school and was later charged with the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which forbid "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone.” Lopez argued that the act, specifically section 922(q) which dealt directly with interstate commerce, was unconstitutional as it exceeded Congress’ regulation power granted under the Commerce Clause. Eventually, the United States government filed a writ of certiorari, arguing that the section was …show more content…
As Justice Breyer stated in his dissent, according to Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Commerce Clause allowed the regulation of local activities so long as they affected interstate commerce. He furthered it was not the Court’s job to determine whether there was a significant effect but, rather, to determine if the Court had a rational basis for concluding the connection. In doing so, the Court must also look at the cumulative effect of all regulatory acts (e.g. all guns being banned off educational properties) rather than the individual act of regulating (one instance of gun possession). Based on empirical evidence, Breyer found that the effect of violent crime on school grounds, which could be more likely in the allowance of guns at these locations, had a negative impact on education. Education was and still is a foundation of the workforce. After all, it is where young people prepare for fields that will later handle interstate commerce. Therefore, this effect would be substantial if the Court compared gun violence to deterioration of quality in education to the