Required caseFederalism & The Commerce Clause

United States v. Lopez

1995·Unit 1: Foundations of American Democracy

Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority by criminalizing gun possession in school zones.

Practice the comparison FRQRead the brief
Decided
1995
Clause at issue
Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8)
Course unit
Unit 1
Case number
12 of 14

Case brief

The three pieces every AP answer about this case should get right.

  1. 1

    The facts

    A student brought a gun to school and was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

  2. 2

    The constitutional question

    Does the Commerce Clause allow Congress to regulate gun possession in local school zones?

  3. 3

    The holding

    The Court ruled in favor of Lopez and struck down the federal law.

Why it matters

  • Carrying a gun in a school zone is non-economic activity.
  • The statute lacked a sufficient connection to interstate commerce.
  • The decision reaffirmed limits on federal power and preserved state sovereignty.

Check yourself

Three questions on United States v. Lopez: the holding, a common mix-up, and how it differs from another required case.

Question 1 of 3

In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Court’s reasoning was that

SCOTUS comparison FRQ

Can you connect United States v. Lopez to a case you’ve never seen?

The exam hands you an unfamiliar case and asks how it relates to a required one. Practice that here: name the shared principle, state the holding, and explain the connection.

Start the comparison

You’ll compare it with

United States v. Morrison (2000)

Three parts

  1. A. Identify the shared principle
  2. B. Describe the required case
  3. C. Explain the connection

Frequently asked questions

Which federal law failed in Lopez?

The Gun-Free School Zones Act, as applied to a student who brought a gun to school. Congress had relied on the Commerce Clause. The Court said this possession was non-economic local conduct with no sufficient tie to interstate commerce.

Does Lopez stop states from banning guns at school?

No. It limits Congress. A state can still regulate guns in schools under its own authority. The problem was a federal criminal statute that reached activity outside interstate commerce.

Why do teachers pair Lopez with McCulloch?

They are the two required federalism cases that point different ways. McCulloch upholds implied federal power and blocks a state from taxing the bank. Lopez strikes a federal law for exceeding the Commerce Clause. Expansion versus a limit.

What belongs in the FRQ sentences?

Lopez is required. State the school-zone gun charge, the Commerce Clause, and the holding that Congress lacked power because the activity was not economic and was not tied to interstate commerce.

The other required cases