### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Januar y 10, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Ho no ra bleJame s C. Hi ll, e le c te d topa rtic ipatein t

hisde c isi on

purs ua nt to 2 8 U .S. C. * §46(c) . [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 01- 14872 a nd 01- 15080

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN os . 99- 00026- C R - 01- 2 a n d 0 1 - 0 0 0 3 2 - CR- 0 1 - 2 - W CO U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A Y S C O T T B A L L I N G E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 10, 2005) B e f o r e E DMON DS ON , C h i e f J u d g e , a n d T J OF L AT , AN DE R S ON , B I R C H, DU B I NA , B L AC K, C ARNE S , B AR KE T T , HU L L , MAR C US , WI L S ON , P R YO R an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

*2

M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: J a y S c ottB a l l i nge rappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons f orf i ve c ount s of

de s truc t i on of r e l i g i o u s p r o p e r ty o n a c c o u n to f th e i rr e l i g i o u s c h a r a c t e r , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 4 7 . B al l i n g er cl ai m s th at§ 2 4 7 i s an u n co n st i tu t i o n al ex erci se o f C o n g ress’ com m er ce po w er , bo th fac i al l y a nd as appl i ed t o h i s off ense s. M oreover, he ar gu es that§ 2 47 do es no t , by i t s e xp re ss t erm s, re ac h h i s c on du ct , w hi ch i nv ol ved tra vel i ng by ca r on the i nt er st at e hi gh w ay s a nd cr ossi ng the bo rder s of f ou r s t at es fo r th e p u rp o se o f b u rn i n g ch u rch es. A ft er rev i ew i n g th e su b st an ce o f C o n g ress’ com m er ce po w er , w e have l i tt l e troub l e c on cl ud i ng that§ 2 47 , bo th fac i al l y a nd as appl i ed t o B al l i ng er , i s aconst i tut i on al expres si on of C on gres s’ w el l -e st abl i shed p o w e rto r e g u la te th e c h a n n e ls a n d in s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e in order t o p re ventthei r use for harm ful pu rposes . F urtherm ore, the w el l -s ett l ed m e a ni ng of

the “ i n c om m e r c e ” j ur i s di c t i ona l l a ngua ge e m pl oy e d by C ongr e s s i n § 247 l e a ds us t o c onc l ude tha tB a l l i nge r ’ s c onduc tf a l l s s qua r e l y w i thi n the s c ope of th e s t a tu t e . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i r m. I. A. O n A p r il 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , a f

e d e r a l g r a n d ju ry in th e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia r e turne d a n i ndi c tm e ntc ha r gi ng J a y S c ottB a l l i nge rw i th thr e e c ount s of3

i nt e nt i ona l l y de s tr oy i ng r e l i gi ous pr ope r ty , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 247, a nd th r e e c o u n ts o f

u s in g f ir e to c o m m it th o s e o f

f e n s e s , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 ( h ) . O n e m o n th la te r , o n M a y 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , a f e d e r a l g r a n d ju ry in th e M id d le D is tr ic t o f

G e o r g ia in d ic te d B a llin g e ro n tw o a d d itio n a l c o u n ts o f in te n tio n a lly destroyi ng re l i gi ou s property, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 47 , and tw o add i t i on al c o u n ts o f u s in g f ir e to c o m m it th o s e o f

f e n s e s , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S . C . § 8 4 4 ( h ) . O n D ec em ber 14, 20 00 , B al l i ng erm ov ed t o d i sm i ss the i nd i ctm enti n the N orthern D i s tr i c tof

G e or gi a on the gr ound tha tthe a l l e ge d of f e ns e s l a c ke d a s uf

f i c i e nt ne xus w i th i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , a nd the U ni t e d S t a t e s M a gi s tr a t e J udge r e c o m m e n d e d th a t th e m o tio n b e d e n ie d . F ou r m on ths l at er , B al l i ng erent er ed a negot i at ed gu i l ty pl eai n the U ni t ed S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u r t f

o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia . B a llin g e rp le d g u ilty to the thr e e c ount s of

i nt e nt i ona l l y de s tr oy i ng r e l i gi ous pr ope r ty i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 47 char ged i n the N orthern D i stri ctof G eorgi a, and, pu rs uantt o F eder al R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 20, he pl e d gui l ty t o the tw o c ount s of vi ol a t i ng § 247 char ged i n the M i dd l e D i stri ctof G eorgi a. A s partof the pl eaagre em ent , B al l i ng er e xpr e s s l y pr e s e r ve d “ the r i ghtt o appe a l the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of § 247 unde rthe C o m m e r c e C la u s e , U .S . C o n s t., A r t. I , § 8 , c l. 3 , b o th o n its f a c e a n d a s ap p lie d to h im .” T h e m ag istrate ju d g e r ec o m m en d ed th at th e d istrict co u rt ac ce p t B alli n g er ’sWe do not summ arize a substantial body of stipulated facts reg ardingthe burne d 1 churches’ involvement in commerce be causewe have no occ asion today to reach the issue of whether the churches eng ag ed in or other wise substantially

aff ecte d interstate c ommerce . 4 gui l ty pl e a , a nd i n a n or de ri s s ue d J ul y 13, 2001, the di s tr i c tc our tappr ove d a nd a dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s R e por ta nd R e c om m e nda t i on i n i t s e nt i r e ty , c onc l udi ng that§ 2 47 w as const i tut i on al bo th fac i al l y a nd as appl i ed. T here af t er , the di stri ct courtse nt ence d B al l i ng ert o l i fe i m pri sonm enton the coun tof vi ol at i ng § 2 47 that ha d r e s ul t e d i n the de a th of a vol unt e e rf

i r e f i ght e rw ho f

oughtthe bl a z e a tone of the burne d c hur c he s , a nd t o 240 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , t o run c onc urr e nt l y , on each o f th e fo u r rem ai n i n g co u n t s. B a l l i nge rappe a l e d on C om m e r c e C l a us e gr ounds , a nd a di vi de d pa ne l of th i s C o u rtrev ersed h i s co n v i ct i o n s. T h e p an el h el d th atal th o u g h § 2 4 7 w as a c o n s titu tio n a l e x e r c is e o f th e c o m m e r c e p o w e r , B a llin g e r ’s c o n d u c t d id n o t f a ll w i thi n the a m bi tof

the s t a tut e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a l l i nge r , 312 F . 3d 1264, 1276 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . O n M a y 12, 2004, thi s C our tva c a t e d the pa ne l opi ni on a nd di r e c t e d tha tthe c a s e be he a r d e n ba nc . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a l l i nge r , 369 F . 3d 1238 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) . B. T he pa r t i e s t o thi s c a s e s t i pul a t e d t o the f ol l ow i ng e s s e nt i a l f

a c t s a s pa r tof 1 the nego t i at ed pl eaagre em ent . B al l i ng eri s aprac t i ci ng “ L uci fe ri an, ” a nd consi ders5

hi m se l f am i ss i on ary of L uci fe r. H e has expres se d h ost i l i ty t ow ar d o rgani ze d C h r is tia n ity , a n d d e s c r ib e s th e b u rn in g o f c h u r c h e s a s h is “w o r k ” a n d h is

“ bu si ness . ” I n D e c e m be r1998, B a l l i nge ra nd hi s gi r l f r i e nd, A nge l a W ood, l e f tI ndi a na in B a llin g e r ’s I n d ia n a - r e g is te r e d v a n , p a r tly o u t o f c o n c e rn ab o u t a c a ll to B al l i ng er ’ s par ent s’ Indi ana hom e by a n F B I a gent . B al l i ng erand W oo d tra vel ed i n B a l l i nge r ’ s va n t o G e or gi a , pa s s i ng thr ough K e ntuc ky a nd T e nne s s e e , a nd us i ng in te r s ta te h ig h w a y s , p u r c h a s in g g a s o lin e a n d o th e rg o o d s , a n d s ta y in g in h o te ls a ll al on g the w ay . O n the w ay t o G eorgi a, B al l i ng erdel i bera t el y s etfi re t o three c hur c he s i n thr e e s t a t e s : the M t . E de n C hr i s t i a n C hur c h i n S c ott s bur g, I ndi a na , on or abou tD ec em ber 20, 19 98 ; the B ol t on S choo l ho use M i ss i on ary B apt i stC hu rc h i n B onni e vi l l e , K e ntuc ky , on oraboutD e c e m be r21, 1998; a nd the L i tt l e H urr i c a ne P r i m i t i ve B apt i s tC hur c h i n M a nc he s t e r , T e nne s s e e , on oraboutD e c e m be r22, 1 9 9 8 . B al l i ng erarri ved i n D al t on , G eorgi a on D ec em ber 22, 19 98 , and checked in to th e B e s t I n n s o f

A m e r ic a H o te l. A t 7 :1 0 p .m ., h e u s e d h is I n d ia n a V is a c a r d to pur c ha s e a pl a s t i c ga s c a n f r om the D a l t on K - M a r ts t or e . A tappr oxi m a t e l y 1: 30 a. m . o n D ecem b er 2 3 , 1 9 9 8 , B al l i n g er d ro v e h i s v an t o th e A m azi n g G race B ap t i st C hu rc h, brok e achurch w i nd ow usi ng a t oo l he had b roug htfr om Indi ana, po ured6

g a s o lin e in to th e b r o k e n w in d o w , a n d s e t f ir e to th e c h u r c h w ith a c ig a r e tte lig h te r . T he f i r e c om pl e t e l y de s tr oy e d the A m a z i ng G r a c e B apt i s tC hur c h. A f t e rs e tt i ng th a t f ir e , B a llin g e rd r o v e h is v a n b a c k to th e D a lto n B e s t I n n s o f A m e r ic a H o te l, w h e r e h e s p e n t th e n ig h t. T h e fo l l o w i n g n i g h t , B al l i n g er d ro v e h i s v an t o th e M o u n t ai n V i ew B ap t i st c hur c h a nd de l i be r a t e l y burne d i t s f e l l ow s hi p ha l l a tappr oxi m a t e l y 1: 09 a . m . on De c e m b e r2 4 , 1 9 9 8 . Ag a i n , B a l l i n g e ru s e d a t o o l f r o m h i s v a n t o b r e a k a wi n d o w, pour e d ga s ol i ne i nt o the br oke n w i ndow , a nd s e tf i r e t o the c hur c h, be f

or e dr i vi ng a w a y . T h e f

ir e b a d ly d a m a g e d th e c h u r c h ’s f e llo w s h ip h a ll. B al l i ng erand W oo d checked ou tof the D al t on B es tInns of A m er i caH ot el a nd dr ove B a l l i nge r ’ s va n t o the A the ns , G e or gi a a r e a , w he r e the y c he c ke d i nt o the P e r i m e t e rI nn on D e c e m be r26, 1998. A l ong the w a y , B a l l i nge rdr ove t o the S ar di s F ul l G ospel C hu rc h i n W al t on C ou nty a nd bu rned i t s f el l ow shi p h al l , t oo , at ap p r o x im a te ly 1 2 :5 3 a .m . o n D e c e m b e r2 5 , 1 9 9 8 , u tte r ly d e s tr o y in g th e b u ild in g . A g a in , B a llin g e rs ta r te d th e f ir e b y b r e a k in g a c h u r c h w in d o w a n d p o u r in g in ga s ol i ne . B a l l i nge rthe n s t a y e d a tthe P e r i m e t e rI nn i n A the ns unt i l J a nua ry 16, 19 99 . D uri ng hi s s t ay , short l y bef ore 9: 15 a. m . on D ec em ber 31, 19 98 , B al l i ng er d ro v e h i s v an t o th e N ew S al em U n i t ed M eth o d i stC h u rch i n B an k s C o u n ty, G eorgi a. A gai n, he brok e aw i nd ow usi ng a t oo l fr om hi s van, po ured i n g as ol i ne,7

and setfi re t o the church. B ef ore des troyi ng the church com pl et el y, the fi re caused the roof t o col l apse , ki l l i ng vo l un t ee r f i re fi gh t erL oy W i l l i am s a nd i nj uri ng three o th er v o l u n t eer fi refi g h t ers. B a llin g e rr e tu rn e d to th e P e r im e te rI n n , w h e r e h e s ta y e d u n til ap p r o x im a te ly 11 : 30 p. m . , w hen h e drove t o the John son U ni t ed M etho di stC hu rc h i n O conee C ou nty, G eorgi a. O nce a gai n, B al l i ng erused a t oo l fr om hi s van t o b re ak a c hu rc h w in d o w , p o u r e d in g a s o lin e , a n d s e t f ir e to th e c h u r c h , b e f

o r e d r iv in g b a c k to h is hot e l . T he f

i r e ba dl y da m a ge d the c hur c h. B a l l i nge rc he c ke d outof the P e r i m e t e rI nn on J a nua ry 16, 1999, a nd dr ove hi s va n ba c k t o I ndi a na . A ga i n he us e d the i nt e r s t a t e hi ghw a y s , pur c ha s e d ga s ol i ne a nd othe rgoods , a nd s t a y e d i n hot e l s thr oughoutthe tr i p. A l ong the w a y ba c k, he s e tf i r e t o thr e e m or e c hur c he s : the C e da rG r ove B apt i s tC hur c h i n F r a nkl i n, K e ntuc ky , on J a nua ry 17, 1999; the P l e a s a ntH i l l M e thodi s tC hur c h i n E l kt on, K entucky, on Ja nu ary 17-18 ; and the N ew H arm on y B apt i stC hu rc h i n B ea ver D am , K entucky, on Ja nu ary 18, 19 99 . D uri ng hi s tra vel s, B al l i ng ercr osse d i nt e r s t a t e bor de r s s i x t i m e s , tr a ve l i ng f r om I ndi a na i nt o K e ntuc ky , f r om K e ntuc ky in to T e n n e s s e e , f

r o m T e n n e s s e e in to G e o r g ia , a n d th e n f r o m G e o r g ia b a c k to T enness ee , then K entucky, and fi nal l y I nd i ana. H e burned a t ot al of el even churches duri ng the course of thi s s i ng l e a rs on spre e.Although B allinger purpor ts to be makinga facial as w ell as an a s-applied c halleng e, 2 see, e .g ., Appellant’s Pane l Br. at 17, we re ad him as makingthe latter morethan the for mer. For one thing , the Appellant de scribed to the en banc Court at oral argument ty pes of c onduct that hebe lieve d w ould f

all w ith in t

hepermiss ibl esc op eof

thestatut e , a

po sition wh olly inconsistent with facial unconstituti onality . See United States v. Saler no, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S. Ct . 2095, 95 L . Ed. 2d 697 (1987) ( “A f acial challeng e to a leg islative Act is, of cour se, the 8 II . B a llin g e rw a s c o n v ic te d u n d e rT itle 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 7 , w h ic h p r o v id e s in r e le v a n t p a r t: ( a ) W hoe ve r , i n a ny of the c i r c um s t a nc e s r e f

e rr e d t o i n s ubs e c t i on ( b) of thi s s ec t i on -- (1) i nt ent i on al l y def

ac es , dam ages , or destroys any r el i gi ou s r ea l pr ope r ty , be c a us e of

the r e l i gi ous c ha r a c t e rof tha tpr ope r ty , or a tt e m pt s t o do s o; or ( 2 ) in te n tio n a lly o b s tru c ts , b y f o r c e o rth r e a t o f

f o r c e , a n y p e r s o n in th e en j o ym en to f th atp erso n ' s free ex erci se o f rel i g i o u s b el i efs, ora tt e m pt s t o do s o; shal l be pu ni shed as prov i ded i n sub se ct i on (d). ( b ) T h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s r e f e rr e d to in s u b s e c tio n ( a ) a r e th a t th e o f f e n s e is i n o r a ff ec t s i nt er st at e or f

orei gn com m er ce . W e unde r s t a nd B a l l i nge ra s ha vi ng m a de thr e e s e pa r a t e , though ove r l appi ng a r g u m e n ts f

o ro v e r tu rn in g h is c o n v ic tio n s u n d e r§ 2 4 7 . F ir s t, B a llin g e rs a y s th a t § 2 4 7 i s faci al l y u n co n st i tu t i o n al -- th ati s, u n d er n o ci rcu m st an ces d o es C o n g ress ha ve the c om m e r c e pow e rt o pr os c r i be the i nt e nt i ona l de s truc t i on of r e l i gi ous p r o p e r ty in o ra f

f e c tin g c o m m e r c e . S e c o n d , B a llin g e rc la im s th a t § 2 4 7 is un const i tut i on al as appl i ed t o h i s c on du ct-- thati s, even i f C on gres s has the po w er t o reach so m e o ffen ses, i ti s n o tem p o w ered t o reach co n d u ctl i k e B al l i n g er’ s. 2most difficult challeng e to mount succe ssfully , since the challeng er must establish that no set of

c irc ums tanc e s e xists un der which th eAc t w ould b evalid .” ). Mo re ov e r, theAppe lla nt’ s b ri e f to thepa ne l in fac t argue d th at “ [t]he‘o ff e ns e ’ o f bur

ninga re lig iou s st

ruc turec an ‘ a ff

e c t inters tate c omm e rc e ’ o nly

if thestr uc tureis in th at sa

mec omm e rc e ,”Appe lla

nt’ s Pa ne l B r. at 44 , ag ain sug g estingthat thereare , indeed, some church bur nings that § 247 may

constitutionally

reach. 9 F i na l l y , the a r gum e nttha tB a l l i nge rha s c a s ta s a n a s - appl i e d c ha l l e nge t o the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of

§ 247 s e e m s r e a l l y t o r a i s e a que s t i on of s t a tut ory c ons truc t i on -

- na m e l y , w he the r , by i t s s pe c i f i c t e r m s , § 247 c ove r s B a l l i nge r ’ s c onduc t . T he s ubs t a nc e of

the a r gum e nti s tha t“ the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s how tha tthe of f e ns e s i n thi s c a s e w e r e ‘ i n ora f f e c t i ng c om m e r c e , ’ ” A ppe l l a nt ’ s P a ne l B r . a t16, r a i s i ng the i s s ue of

w he the rthe s t a tut ory l a ngua ge c ont e m pl a t e s of f e ns e s l i ke B a l l i nge r ’ s . T he f

i r s ttw o que s t i ons a r e e a s i l y r e s ol ve d, a nd w e a ddr e s s the m a tthe ou t se t ; the thi rd i s m ore i nv ol ved, and i s a tthe heartof thi s c as e. A. W e r e v ie w th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f a s ta tu te d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 2 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T o d e te r m in e w h e th e r§ 2 4 7 is a v a lid exer ci se of C on gres s’ com m er ce po w er , w e begi n w i th an o vervi ew of the nature of tha tpow e r . A r t i c l e I , § 8 of the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on pr ovi de s tha t“ T he C o n g ress sh al l h av e th e P o w er . . . T o reg u l at e C o m m erce w i th fo rei g n N at i o n s, a nd a m ong the s e ve r a l S t a t e s , a nd w i th the I ndi a n T r i be s . ” U . S . C ons t . a r t . I , § 8, c ls . 1 & 3 .10

Th e Su p r e me Co u r t ’ s l a n d ma r k d e c i s i o n i n U n i t e d St a t e s v . Lo p e z , 5 1 4 U . S. 54 9, 11 5 S . C t . 16 24 , 13 1 L . E d. 2d 62 6 (19 95 ), w hi ch i ss ued sho rt l y bef ore C on gres s a m ended § 24 7 i n 1 99 6, sy nthesi ze d m ore than a century of C om m er ce C l a us e a c t i vi ty i nt o a de f i ni t i ve de s c r i pt i on of

the c om m e r c e pow e r . I n L ope z , the C our ta ddr e s s e d the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of the G un- F r e e S c hool Z one s A c tof 1990, 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 2 ( q ) ( 1 9 8 8 e d . , Su p p . V ) , w h i c h p r o h i b i t e d p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m w ith in a th o u s a n d f

e e t o f a s c h o o l. B e c a u s e th e s ta tu te c r im in a liz e d in tr a s ta te co n d u ctw i th o u ti n cl u d i n g an y j u ri sd i ct i o n al h o o k t o “ en su re, th ro u g h case-b y-case in q u iry , th a t th e f

ir e a r m p o s s e s s io n in q u e s tio n a f f e c ts in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ,” L o p ez, 5 1 4 U . S . at5 6 1 , th e C o u rtfo u n d th ati tex ceed ed th e sco p e o f C o n g ress’ c om m e r c e pow e r . I n r e a c hi ng thi s c onc l us i on, C hi e f J us t i c e R e hnqui s t , w r i t i ng f or th e C o u r t, la id o u t “th r e e b r o a d c a te g o r ie s o f a c tiv ity th a t C o n g r e s s m a y r e g u la te u n d e rits c o m m e r c e p o w e r ” : “F ir s t, C o n g r e s s m a y r e g u la te th e u s e o f th e c h a n n e ls of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . S ec on d, C on gres s i s e m po w er ed t o regul at e a nd prot ec t th e in s tru m e n ta litie s o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , o rp e r s o n s o rth in g s in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , e v e n th o u g h th e th r e a t m a y c o m e o n ly f r o m in tr a s ta te a c tiv itie s . F i n al l y, C o n g ress’ co m m erce au th o ri ty i n cl u d es th e p o w er t o reg u l at e th o se ac t i vi t i es havi ng a s ub st ant i al re l at i on t o i nt er st at e c om m er ce , i . e. , tho se ac t i vi t i es thatsubst ant i al l y a ff

ec ti nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” I d. at55 8-59 (c i t at i on s om i tt ed); se eWe characterize highw ays as cha nnels of commerce, sinc e they areroutes for

the 3 int e rs tatetranspo rt atio n o f p e op leand g oo ds . H ow e ver, it b e arsno tingtha t roads re sembl e instrumentalities of commerc e in certain re spects as w ell (for example, unlike ocea

ns and airwa ys, they areartificially

constructe d and -- albeit at some c ost -- movea ble); thus, the Supreme Court has va

riously labeled highways both as channe ls and as instrumentalities. Compare Pierc e County , 537 U.S. at 147 (cha nnels); and Okla

homa ex rel. Phill ips, 313 U.S. at 5 1 8 ( c h ann e l s ) , w i thGu l f O i lC o r p . v . C o p p P av i n gC o . , 4 1 9 U . S . 1 8 6 , 1 9 7 , 9 5 S . C t . 3 9 2 , 4 2 L. Ed .2 d 3 78 (1 97 4) (ins tr

umentalitie s) ; A lst ateCon st. Co. v. Du rkin, 34 5 U .S. 13 , 1 6, 73 S. Ct . 565, 97 L . Ed. 745 (1953) ( instrumentalities); Overstre et v. N. Shore Corp, 318 U .S. 125, 129- 30, 63 S. Ct . 494, 87 L . Ed. 656 (1943) ( instrumentalities); and Monong ahela Navig ation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 342, 13 S. Ct . 622, 37 L . Ed. 463 (1893) ( instrumentalities). 11 a l s o , e . g . , Un i t e d St a t e s v . M o rr i s o n , 5 2 9 U. S. 5 9 8 , 6 0 8 - 0 9 , 1 2 0 S. Ct . 1 7 4 0 , 1 4 6 L. E d. 2d 658 ( 2000) ( r e i t e r a t i ng the s e c a t e gor i e s ) ; S c ott , 263 F . 3d a t1271- 72 ( r e ite r a tin g th e L o p e z c a te g o r ie s ) . C ha nne l s of

c om m e r c e a r e “ the i nt e r s t a t e tr a ns por t a t i on r out e s thr ough w hi ch pers on s a nd go od s m ov e. ” M orri son, 52 9 U . S . at61 3 n . 5 (qu ot i ng U ni t ed S ta te s v . L a n k f

o r d , 1 9 6 F .3 d 5 6 3 , 5 7 1 - 5 7 2 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . T h e s e c h a n n e ls i n c l u d e h i g h w a y s , s e e , e . g . , Pi e r c e Co u n ty v . G u i l l e n , 5 3 7 U . S. 1 2 9 , 1 4 7 , 1 2 3 S. 3 C t . 720, 154 L . E d. 2d 610 ( 2003) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P appa dopoul os , 64 F . 3d 522, 527 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N e w B uf f a l o A m us e m e ntC orp. , 600 F . 2d 3 6 8 , 3 9 1 n .4 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) , r a ilr o a d s , n a v ig ab le w a te r s , a n d a ir s p a c e , s e e , e .g ., O k la h o m a e x r e l. P h illip s v . G u y F . A tk in s o n C o ., 3 1 3 U .S . 5 0 8 , 5 1 6 - 1 8 , 6 1 S . C t. 1050, 85 L . E d. 1487 ( 1941) ; E s c a naba & L a ke M i c h. T r a ns p. C o. v. C i ty of C h ic a g o , 1 0 7 U .S . 6 7 8 , 6 8 2 , 1 7 O tto 6 7 8 , 2 S . C t. 1 8 5 , 2 7 L . E d . 4 4 2 ( 1 8 8 3 ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H o, 311 F . 3d 589, 597 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ; I c ke s v. F A A , 299 F . 3d12

26 0, 26 3 (3d C i r. 20 02 ); G i bb s v. B abbi tt , 21 4 F . 3d 48 3, 49 0-91 (4th C i r. 20 00 ), as w e l l a s t e l e c om m uni c a t i ons ne tw or ks , s e e , e . g. , H o, 311 F . 3d a t597; G i bbs , 214 F . 3d a t490- 91, a nd na t i ona l s e c ur i t i e s m a r ke t s , s e e , e . g. , R i l e y v. M e rr i l l L y nc h, P i er ce , F enner & S m i th, Inc. , 29 2 F . 3d 13 34 , 13 47 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). I ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , by c ontr a s t , a r e the pe opl e a nd th i n g s th em sel v es m o v i n g i n co m m erce, i n cl u d i n g au t o m o b i l es, ai rp l an es, b o at s, a n d s h i p me n t s o f

g o o d s . Se e , e . g . , Pe r e z v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 4 0 2 U . S. 1 4 6 , 1 5 0 , 9 1 S. C t . 1357, 28 L . E d. 2d 686 ( 1971) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H i c km a n, 179 F . 3d 230, 232 (5th C i r. 19 99 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. C ob b, 14 4 F . 3d 31 9, 32 2 (4th C i r. 19 98 ); U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M c H e nry , 97 F . 3d 125, 126 ( 6th C i r . 1996) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B i s hop, 66 F . 3d 56 9, 58 8 (3d C i r. 19 95 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. O l i ver, 60 F . 3d 54 7, 55 0 (9th C i r. 1995) . I ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of c om m e r c e i nc l ude , a s w e l l , “ pa ge r s , t e l e phone s , a nd m ob i l e pho nes. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P i pk i ns, 37 8 F . 3d 12 81 , 12 95 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). P l ai nl y, cong re ss i on al po w ert o regul at e the channel s a nd i nstrum ent al i t i es o f c o m m e r c e in c lu d e s th e p o w e rto p r o h ib it th e iru s e f o rh a r m f u l p u rp o s e s , e v e n if th e ta r g e te d h a r m its e lf

o c c u r s o u ts id e th e f

lo w o f c o m m e r c e a n d is p u r e ly lo c a l in n a tu r e . Se e , e . g . , Lo p e z , 5 1 4 U . S. a t5 5 8 - 5 9 ; Br o o k s v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 2 6 7 U . S. 4 3 2 , 4 3 6 , 4 5 S . C t. 3 4 5 , 6 9 L . E d . 6 9 9 ( 1 9 2 5 ) ( “C o n g r e s s c a n c e r ta in ly r e g u la te i nt er st at e c om m er ce t o the ext entof forbi dd i ng and p un i shi ng the use of s uch13

c om m e r c e a s a n a ge nc y t o pr om ot e i m m or a l i ty , di s hone s ty , orthe s pr e a d of a ny e vi l orha r m t o the pe opl e of othe rs t a t e s f

r om the s t a t e of

or i gi n. ” ) ; H e a r tof A t l a nt a M ot e l , I nc . v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 379 U . S . 241, 256, 85 S . C t . 348, 13 L . E d. 2d 2 5 8 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ( “[ T ]h e a u th o r ity o f C o n g r e s s to k e e p th e c h a n n e ls o f in te r s ta te c om m e r c e f

r e e f r om i m m or a l a nd i nj ur i ous us e s ha s be e n f r e que nt l y s us t a i ne d, a nd i s no l onge rope n t o que s t i on. ” ( quot i ng C a m i ne tt i v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 242 U . S . 470, 4 9 1 , 3 7 S . C t. 1 9 2 , 6 1 L . E d . 4 4 2 ( 1 9 1 7 ) ) ) . C o n g r e s s h a s r e p e a te d ly u s e d th is pow e rt o r e a c h c r i m i na l c onduc ti n w hi c h the i l l e ga l a c t s ul t i m a t e l y oc c ur in tr a s ta te , w h e n th e p e rp e tr a to ru s e s th e c h a n n e ls o rin s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s ta te com m er ce t o fac i l i t at e thei r c om m i ss i on . T i t l e 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 2, for e xam pl e, r e a c he s a br oa d r a nge of pur e l y i ntr a s t a t e c r i m i na l c onduc t- - i nc l udi ng e xt or t i on, bri bery , drug di stri bu t i on , prost i tut i on , and, i nd ee d, ar son -- w hen t he offender tra vel s i n o r use s the fa ci l i t i es of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 2(a) - ( b) ; s e e a l s o, e . g. , 18 U . S . C . § 1951 ( pr ohi bi t i ng r obbe ry a nd e xt or t i on tha t“ i n a ny w a y orde gr e e obs truc t s , de l a y s , ora f f e c t s c om m e r c e ” ) ; 18 U . S . C . § 1958 ( p r o h ib itin g tr a v e l in o rth e u s e o f a n y f a c ility o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e to c o m m it m u r d e rf o rh ir e ) . C o n g r e s s ’ p o w e rto r e g u la te a c tiv itie s th a t “a f f e c t” c o m m e r c e e n ab le s it to r e a c h w h o lly in tr a s ta te c o n d u c t - - th a t is , c o n d u c t th a t u tiliz e s n e ith e rth e c h a n n e lsAcc ording ly , we of fer no opinion as to whether thechurch burning s in this case af fec ted 4 int e rs tatec omm e rc e , e ith e r b e c a us ethec hurche s w e ree ng ag e d in c omm e rc eprior

to t he ir de str uc tio n o r b e c a

us ethe ir a c tiv iti e s w e resu ff

ic iently int e rs tatein n aturethat th e y oth e rwise substantially

aff ecte d interstate c ommerce . Moreover, weneed not a nd do not addre ss the question -- brie fed to the en banc Court by both parties -- of whe ther a ny eff ects the church burning s mi ght h aveon

c omm e rc emay

beag gre g ate d f

or purp os e s o f t

heL op e z an alysis . 14 n o r th e in stru m en tali ti es o f in ters tate co m m er ce -- b u t o n ly w h en ith as “a s u b s ta n tia l r e la tio n to ” ( m e a n in g it “s u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c t[ s ]” ) in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . L ope z , 514 U . S . a t558- 59. T hi s thi r d L ope z pr ong i s the br oa de s te xpr e s s i on of Co n g r e s s ’ c o mme r c e p o w e r . Se e , e . g . , M a n d e v i l l e I s l a n d Fa r ms , I n c . v . A m. C ry st al S ug arC o. , 33 4 U . S . 21 9, 23 2 & n. 11 , 68 S . C t . 99 6, 92 L . E d. 13 28 (194 8). B. T he const i tut i on al i ss ue thi s c as e r ai se s i s w hether the C om m er ce C l ause , f o u n d in A r tic le I , § 8 , c la u s e s 1 a n d 3 o f th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n , p e r m its C ongr e s s t o pr os c r i be the c onduc tof a n a r s oni s tw ho tr a ve l s by c a ron the in te r s ta te h ig h w a y s th r o u g h f o u rs ta te s , ap p a r e n tly f

o rn o o th e rp u rp o s e th a n to burn c hur c he s t o the gr ound. W e ne e d nota nd do notr e a c h the que s t i on of w he the r§ 247 c ons t i tut e s a pe r m i s s i bl e r e gul a t i on unde rthe thi r d L ope z pr ong of act i v i ty affecti n g co m m erce, si n ce th e st atu t e fal l s sq u arel y w i th i n C o n g ress’ 4 pow e runde rthe f

i r s ttw o L ope z pr ongs t o r e gul a t e the c ha nne l s a nd i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

c om m e r c e . B a l l i nge rs e tf i r e t o a tl e a s te l e ve n c hur c he s i n f our s t a t e s dur i ng the c our s e of hi s i nt e r s t a t e a r s on s pr e e . T hi s i s pr e c i s e l y the s or tof15

c onduc ttha tm a y be r e gul a t e d unde rC ongr e s s ’ w e l l - e s t abl i s he d pow e rt o f orbi d or p u n is h th e u s e o f

th e c h a n n e ls a n d in s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e “to pr om ot e . . . the s pr e a d of a ny e vi l orha r m t o the pe opl e of othe rs t a t e s f

r om the st at e of ori gi n. ” B rook s, 26 7 U . S . at43 6. T he C om m er ce C l ause cont em pl at es c ongr e s s i ona l e f

f or t s “ t o ke e p the c ha nne l s of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e f

r e e f r om im m o r a l a n d in

ju r io u s u s e s .” H e a r t o f

A tla n ta , 3 7 9 U .S . a t 2 5 6 ( q u o tin g C a m in e tti, 24 2 U . S . at49 1). S urel y, ut i l i zi ng the channel s a nd i nstrum ent al i t i es of com m er ce t o f a c i l i t a t e a pr ol onge d, m ul t i s t a t e c hur c h- burni ng s pr e e qua l i f i e s a s a n “ i nj ur i ous use” thatC on gres s m ay proscr i be pu rs uantt o i t s c om m er ce po w er . T h e A p p e lla n t a r g u e s , n e v e r th e le s s , th a t C o n g r e s s ’ p o w e ro v e rth e c h a n n e ls a nd i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of c om m e r c e a uthor i z e s i tt o pr os c r i be onl y thos e ha r m f ul ac t i vi t i es w ho se ul t i m at e a ctus re us occurs w i thi n a channel of com m er ce , se e A ppe l l a nt ’ s P a ne l B r . a t38- 40, orc ons t i tut e s a n a tt a c k on a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of c o m m e r c e , s e e id . a t 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 5 - 3 8 . B a llin g e rs a y s th a t C o n g r e s s ’ p o w e rto r e g u la te th e c h a n n e ls o f

c o m m e r c e d o e s n o t a u th o r iz e it to r e g u la te “a n a c tiv ity th a t m e r e ly i m pl i c a t e s ori nvoke s the us e of the c ha nne l s of

c om m e r c e , ” i d. a t39; a r s on, the a r gum e ntc ont i nue s , i s a n a c tc ons um m a t e d out s i de the c ha nne l s of c om m e r c e , a nd thu s bey on d the re ac h o f the com m er ce po w er . N or, the A pp el l antas se rt s, do es C ongr e s s ’ pow e rt o r e gul a t e the i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of c om m e r c e a uthor i z e § 247,16

b e c a u s e th e s ta tu te r e g u la te s c h u r c h b u ild in g s , w h ic h d o n o t th e m s e lv e s c o n s titu te in s tru m e n ta litie s o f

c o m m e r c e . I d . a t 2 9 - 3 0 . T h e s e a r g u m e n ts m is c o n c e iv e th e n a tu r e o f C o n g r e s s ’ c o m m e r c e a u th o r ity . T he c om m e r c e pow e rha s a l w a y s be e n c ons true d by the S upr e m e C our tt o i nc l ude th e p o w e rto p r o h ib it th e u s e o f th e c h a n n e ls o rin s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e “to p r o m o te im m o r a lity , d is h o n e s ty , o rth e s p r e a d o f a n y e v il o rh a r m to the pe opl e of

othe rs t a t e s f

r om the s t a t e oror i gi n. ” B r ooks , 267 U . S . a t436 (em p h asi s ad d ed ). A n actth atp ro m o t es h arm , n o tth e h arm i t sel f, i s al l th atm u st occur i n com m er ce t o p erm i tcong re ss i on al re gu l at i on . In fa ct , i ti s a“ w el l -s ett l ed p ri n ci p l e th atC o n g ress m ay i m p o se rel ev an tco n d i t i o n s an d req u i rem en t s o n th o se w ho us e the c ha nne l s of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e i n or de rtha tthos e c ha nne l s w i l l not be c om e the m e a ns of

pr om ot i ng ors pr e a di ng e vi l , w he the rof a phy s i c a l , m or a l or e c o n o mi c n a tu r e . ” Un i t e d St a t e s v . Or i t o , 4 1 3 U. S. 1 3 9 , 1 4 4 , 9 3 S. Ct . 2 6 7 4 , 3 7 L. E d. 2d 513 ( 1973) ( quot i ng N . A m . C o. v. S E C , 327 U . S . 686, 705, 66 S . C t . 785, 9 0 L. Ed . 9 4 5 ( 1 9 4 6 ) ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) ; s e e a l s o A m. Po w e r& Li g h tCo . v . SEC, 3 2 9 U .S . 9 0 , 9 9 , 6 7 S . C t. 1 3 3 , 9 1 L . E d . 1 0 3 ( 1 9 4 6 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; K y . W h ip & C ol l a rC o. v. I l l . C e nt . R . R . C o. , 299 U . S . 334, 347, 57 S . C t . 277, 81 L . E d. 270 ( 1937) ( “ T he a nt i c i pa t e d e vi l orha r m m a y pr oc e e d f r om s om e thi ng i nhe r e nti n the subj ec tof tra nspo rt at i on as i n the ca se of di se as ed or no xi ou s a rt i cl es , w hi ch ar e17

u n f it f o rc o m m e r c e . O rth e e v il m a y lie in th e p u rp o s e o f th e tr a n s p o r ta tio n , a s in the ca se of l ot t ery t i cket s, or the tra nspo rt at i on of w om en for i m m oral pu rposes . ” ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ) . T hese prec edent s l ea ve no do ub tthatthe com m er ce po w ercont em pl at es c o n g r e s s io n a l r e g u la tio n o f th e c h a n n e ls a n d in s tru m e n ta litie s o f c o m m e r c e in order t o p re ventthei r use t o fac i l i t at e harm ful ac t s, w hi ch m ay be consum m at ed -- and w ho se ef

fe ct s ul t i m at el y m ay be fe l t-- ou t si de the fl ow of com m er ce . In e n a c tin g § 2 4 7 , C o n g r e s s w a s a tte m p tin g to d o ju s t th a t - - to p r e v e n t w h a t it char ac t er i ze d as the evi l of church bu rni ng s, w hi ch had b ec om e anat i on al e pi de m i c , f

r om s pr e a di ng f

r om s t a t e t o s t a t e thr ough the c ha nne l s a nd i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . S e e H . R . R e p. N o. 104- 621, a t2, r e pr i nt e d i n 1996 U . S . C . C . A . N . 1082, 1083. C o n g r e s s a c te d w e ll w ith in th e b o u n d s o f its c o m m e r c e p o w e rw h e n it e na c t e d l e gi s l a t i on t o pr e ve ntc onduc tl i ke B a l l i nge r ’ s , w hi c h e nt a i l e d w e e ks of tra vel i n a van (an i nstrum ent al i ty of c om m er ce ) a l on g i nt er st at e hi gh w ay s ( a c ha nne l of

c om m e r c e ) a nd a tl e a s ts i x s e pa r a t e i nt e r s t a t e bor de rc r os s i ngs , a l l f or the s pe c i f

i c purpos e of

s pr e a di ng the e vi l of

c hur c h burni ng thr ough f ourdi f f e r e nt s t a t e s . A s the di s s e ntf

r om the e a r l i e rpa ne l opi ni on puti t : “ B a l l i nge r ’ s a c t i ons pl a c e d hi m s qua r e l y w i thi n the bounds of C ongr e s s ’ s pow e rt o r e gul a t e be c a us e heContrary to the sug g estion in Judg e B irch’s dissent, the que stion beforeus is not whether 5 Congress has the pow er to proscribe pure ly intrastate acts of ar son. The statute that Judge B irch would condemn a s an unconstitutional intrusion on st ate a uthority is not a flat proscription on c hurch a rs on . Rather, § 2 47 c ontainsan e xplic it re quire ment o f a n a pp ropriatene xus w ith interstate c ommerce , so that churc h arson may be prose cuted only

when “the offense is in or aff ects interstate or foreign commerc e.” § 247(b). Chief Just ice Rehnquist, writingfor the Court in Lop e z, madeit a

bundantly c le ar t hat a fe deral c rimin al st atut ethat c ontains“ an e xpre ss jurisdictional element” c apableof “limit[ ing] its reach to a discrete set of [offenses] that a dditi on ally

havean e xplic it c onne c tio n w ithor e ff e c t on int e rs tatec omm e rc e ”is s ub sta nti ally different from a

statute that contains no such jurisdictional e lement, and must be tre ated differently . See L opez, 514 U.S. at 561 (contra sting the statute at issue in that case, which c ontaine d n o ju

ri sdic tio nal e le ment, wi th t hestatuteat is su ein Unit e d St ate s v . B a ss, 40 4 U .S. 33 6, 92 S. Ct . 5 15 , 3 0 L . E d. 2d 48 8 ( 19 71 ), whic h did h avesu c h a c omp on e nt) . Wh e n a

statut e e xpre ssly re quire s th at th epros c ribe d c on du c t ha vean a pp ropriatene xus w ithint e rs tate c omm e rc e , c ourt s c an “ e ns ure , through c a se -b y-c a seinq uir y ,”tha t e a c h a pp lic atio n o f t

hestatut e is c on sti tution al, a

nd thu s th estatut esh ould n ot b estr uc k down a s b e ingfac ially unconstitutional. S ee id. ( observingthat the B ass Court appropriately “set a side the [firear

m possession] conviction bec ause . . . theGover nment . . . had failed ‘to show the re quisite nexus with interstate commerce,’ ” and thereby “interpreted the statute to reser ve the c onstitut ional question whether

Congress could re gulate, without more, the ‘ merepossession’ of fire arms”) (citingUnited States v. FiveGamblingDevice s, 346 U.S. 441, 448, 74 S. C t. 190, 98 L . Ed. 179 (1953) (plurality

opinion) (“Theprinciple is old and deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence that this Court wil l construe a statute in a manner that re quires dec ision of serious constitutional questions only

if the statutory

languag e leaves no re asonablealternative.”)) . Congress dra fted the a

mended § 247 to include, a s an element of the statutorily define d c rime , th ere quire ment t

hat th eof fens eoc c ur

in o r a ff e c t c omm e rc e . T o tre at th is s tatut ea s if it c ontaine d n o n e xus toint e rs tatec omm e rc e , b ut rather a s if it s imp ly pros c ribe d who lly

int ra state 18 used i nt er st at e c om m er ce as an agency t o p rom ot e c ri m i nal ac t s of a rs on . In addi t i on t o the ob vi ou s f ac tthati tw as nece ss ary f or hi m t o tra vel ac ross st at e l i nes i n or de rt o c om m i ta r s on i n G e or gi a ( a s w e l l a s T e nne s s e e a nd K e ntuc ky ) , the i m m e di a c y w i th w hi c h he s e toutt o de s tr oy c hur c he s onc e he a rr i ve d a nd the abs e nc e of

a ny i ndi c a t i on tha the ha d othe rbus i ne s s i n G e or gi a de m ons tr a t e tha the used the channel s of i nt er st at e c om m er ce for the pu rpose of c om m i tt i ng ar son. ” B al l i ng er , 31 2 F . 3d at12 78 (H al l , J. , di ss ent i ng ). 5ac t s o f c hurc har s o n , wo u l d re qu i re u s t o i gn o re th e e xp l i ci ti nt er s t at e c o mm er ce l an gu age contained in the statute. I f Congress had asser ted its commercepower

to proscribechurch burning s without requiringthat the offenses occur in or af fec t interstate commerce, theresulting leg islation would have raised a substantial constitutional question. However, that question is not present heresince wecannot disca rd the jurisdictional languag e that Congress, mindful of L opez, employed for

the express purpose of

situating § 247 within the constitutional bounds of its commercepower . See H.R. Rep. No. 104- 621, at 7, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1082, 1088. By g iving proper e ffe ct to the statute’s jurisdictional element, we preser ve our tradition of federalism and Congress’ long standingArticle I commerc e power, both of which ha ve deep roots in the Constitution. 19 M o r e o v e r , a s th e A p p e lla n t h im s e lf a c k n o w le d g e s , C o n g r e s s h a s r e p e a te d ly a c t e d pur s ua ntt o i t s c om m e r c e pow e rt o r e gul a t e us e of the c ha nne l s a nd in s tru m e n ta litie s o f

c o m m e r c e to p r o s c r ib e c r im in a l c o n d u c t. B a llin g e rh im s e lf ci t es nu m er ou s s t atut es thatproh i bi tm ov em entthrou gh the channel s of c om m er ce a nd/ orus e of

the i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of c om m e r c e f

orva r i ous purpos e s , i nc l udi ng: 18 U .S .C . § 4 3 ( to e n g a g e in a n im a l e n te rp r is e te rr o r is m ) ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 8 ( to a v o id pa y i ng c hi l d s uppor t ) ; 18 U . S . C . § 1073 ( t o a voi d pr os e c ut i on) ; 18 U . S . C . § 1074 ( to a v o id p r o s e c u tio n f

o rd e s tr o y in g p r o p e r ty ) ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( to e n g a g e in s tr i ke br e a ki ng) ; 18 U . S . C . § 1958 ( t o c om m i tm ur de rf orhi r e ) ; 18 U . S . C . § 2101 (t o cause a r i ot ); 18 U . S . C . § 2 11 8 (t o eng age i n rob bery i nv ol vi ng control l ed s ubs t a nc e s ) ; 18 U . S . C . § 2261 ( t o c om m i tdom e s t i c vi ol e nc e ) ; 18 U . S . C . § 2261A ( t o c om m i ts t a l ki ng) ; 18 U . S . C . § 2262 ( t o vi ol a t e a dom e s t i c pr ot e c t i ve or de r ) ; 18 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 3 ( to p r o v id e m in o r s f o rs e x ) . T h e s e s ta tu te s c le a r ly illu s tr a te C ongr e s s ’ pow e rt o puni s h of f e nde r s l i ke B a l l i nge r , w ho r e l y on the c ha nne l s a ndThe dissent from the panel opinion also cites a number of e arly

Supreme Court ca ses 6 upholding similar congressional e x erc ises of commerce pow er. SeeBallinger , 312 F.3d at 1277 (Hall, J ., dissenting) (citingBrooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 45 S. C t. 345, 69 L . Ed. 699 (1925), whic h upheld a statute prohibiting the tra nsportation across state lines of stolen automobiles; Caminetti v. Unit ed States, 242 U.S. 470, 37 S. Ct. 192, 61 L . Ed. 442 (1917), whic h u ph e ld a statut eproh ibitingthetranspo rt atio n o f w omen ac ro ss s tatelin e s f or thepurp os e of concubinag e; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 33 S. C t. 281, 57 L . Ed. 523 (1913), which upheld a statute prohibiting inducinga woman to tra vel in interstate c ommercefor the pur pose of prostitution; and Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321, 23 S. Ct. 321, 47 L . Ed. 492 (1903), which upheld a statute ba

rringthe transpor

tation across state lines of lottery tickets). 20 i n stru m en t al i t i es o f co m m erce i n co m m i tt i n g cri m i n al act s. 6 B al l i ng erurges us t o d i st i ng ui sh these st atut es fr om § 2 47 , sugg es t i ng that they “ ar e e xam pl es of prop eruse of the C om m er ce C l ause by re gu l at i ng an i nstrum ent al i ty of or athi ng i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . In contra st , the l angu age of § 247 doe s notr e qui r e a ny thi ng t o m ove i n c om m e r c e . ” A ppe l l a nt ’ s P a ne l B r . a t36- 3 7 . T h e d if

f e r e n c e , a c c o r d in g to th e A p p e lla n t, is th a t th e s e s ta tu te s “r e g u la te c r im e b y f

o c u s in g o n th e c r im in a l’s m o v e m e n t in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e .” I d . a t 3 6 . T hi s a nal ys i s, ho w ever , confl at es the const i tut i on al qu es t i on w i th the st atut ory i nt erpret at i on qu es t i on . T he qu es t i on of w hether C on gres s has the const i tut i on al a uthor i ty t o pr os c r i be B a l l i nge r ’ s c onduc ti s e nt i r e l y di s t i nc tf r om the que s t i on of w h e th e rth e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e C o n g r e s s e m p lo y e d a c tu a lly r e a c h e d th a t c o n d u c t. A ppe l l a nt , i n f

a c t , s e e m s t o c onc e de tha tC ongr e s s c ons t i tut i ona l l y c oul d ha ve pr os c r i be d B a l l i nge r ’ s of f e ns e s , s i m pl y by r e w or di ng the s t a tut e t o “ f oc us [ ] on theNot all of the statutes the A ppellant cites actually

focus on the travel rather than on the 7 offense. Title 18 U.S.C. § 2118(a), f or example, provides: “Whoever take s or attempts to take from the person or pre senceof another by forc e or violenc e or by

intimi dation any

. . . controlled substance . . . shall . . . be fined . . . or imprisoned . . . if . . . (2) the person who eng ag ed in such takingor attempt e d s uc h ta

kingtrave le d in

int e rs tateor

fo re ign c omm e rc eor

us e d a ny fac ili ty in int e rs tateor

fo re ign c omm e rc eto f

a c ili tatesu c h ta

kingor attempt .”Plainly , this p ro vis ion is worde d to focus on punishingthe ac t of takingproper ty , not the trave l in or use of a fac ility of interstate c ommerce . Other statutes f

urther illustrate theformalistic natureof the Appe llant’s sug g estion that Congre ss c an o nly

pros c ribetrave l in

c omm e rc eto c ommit a

c rime , n ot t

hec rimeits e lf

. Thu s, for e x ample, 21 U.S.C. § 331(k) prohibits “[t] he alteration, mutilation, destruction, oblit eration, or removal of the wholeor any part of thelabelingof, or the doingof any other act with respe ct to, a fo od , d rug , d e vic e , o r c os me tic , if su c h ac t is do newhilesu c h a rtic leis h e ld f

or sale (whe ther o r n ot t

hefirs t sale ) a ft e r s hip ment in inters tatec omm e rc eand re sults in s uc h a

rtic le be inga dulterate d o r misb ra nd e d. ”21 U. S.C. § 3 31 (k) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . In f a c t, t heSup reme Court has upheld § 331(k) (then c odified as 21 U.S.C. § 301(k)) as a valid ex erc ise of commerce po wer. Se eUnite d State s v . Sulliva n, 33 2 U .S. 68 9, 68 S. Ct . 3 31 , 9 2 L . E d. 29 7 ( 19 48 ); se ealso United States v. Ever s, 643 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. Apr . 27, 1981) (notingthe Supreme Court’s holding in Sullivan and applying thestatute ac cording ly). Simi larly , th eSup remeCourt he ld in Sc arb orough v . Unit e d St ate s, 43 1 U .S. 56 3, 97 S. Ct. 1963, 52 L . Ed. 2d 582 (1977), that under 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a) , which punishes fe lons who “possess[] . . . in commerc e” a firea rm, the off

ense of possession need not have“a present ne xus wi th c omm e rc e .”I d. at 57 1- 72 . Rather, thefire arm ne e d o nly

havemov e d in

c omm e rc eat so me time prior to the fe lon’s possession of it. See, e.g ., United States v. Dupre e, 258 F .3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2001) (upholdingthe constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ), the succ essor statute to § 1202(a) ). 21 c r i m i na l ’ s m ove m e nti n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” I d. 7 T hus , f orthe purpos e of

de t e r m i ni ng the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of pr os c r i bi ng B a llin g e r ’s c o n d u c t, it is s u f f ic ie n t to s a y th a t C o n g r e s s ’ c o m m e r c e a u th o r ity i nc l ude s the pow e rt o puni s h a c hur c h a r s oni s tw ho us e s the c ha nne l s a nd i nstrum ent al i t i es of i nt er st at e c om m er ce t o com m i thi s off ense s. G i ven that C ongr e s s ha s the pow e rt o pr os c r i be B a l l i nge r ’ s c onduc t , w e turn t o the r e m a i ni ng que s t i on of

w he the r , i n e na c t i ng § 247, C ongr e s s a c tua l l y di d s o.22 II I. T h e c e n tr a l q u e s tio n th is ap p e a l r a is e s is w h e th e r§ 2 4 7 is p r o p e r ly i nt e rpr e t e d a s pr ohi bi t i ng the us e of the c ha nne l s a nd i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of c om m e r c e t o c om m i tc hur c h a r s on, orw he the rthe s t a tut e m e r e l y pr os c r i be s a r s ons in w h ic h th e b u rn in g o f th e c h u r c h its e lf

o c c u r s in c o m m e r c e o ra f f e c ts c o m m e r c e . B al l i n g er t ak es th e p o si t i o n th atarso n i s a p u rel y i n trast at e act i v i ty th atcan rarel y, i f e ve r , be “ i n c om m e r c e . ” I n thi s vi e w , the c r i m e of a r s on oc c ur s onl y a tthe p r e c is e “p o in t w h e n th e a r s o n is t s ta r ts th e f ir e ,” A p p e lla n t’s E n B a n c B r . a t 2 0 ; th is p o in t, th e r e f

o r e , is th e o n ly o n e r e le v a n t to d e te r m in in g w h e th e rth e o f f e n s e is “in co m m erce.” “ [T ] rav el p ri o r t o th e o ffen se i s n o trel ev an t , ” B al l i n g er m ai n t ai n s, b e c a u s e it is n o t p a r t o f

th e o f f e n s e . I d . a t 2 9 . A c c o r d in g ly , h e r e a d s § 2 4 7 's pr ovi s i on tha t“ the of

f e ns e i s i n ora f

f e c t s ” c om m e r c e a s r e qui r i ng tha tthe defe nd antcom m i tthe ul t i m at e a ctus re us of i gn i t i ng the church “ i n com m er ce . ” B a llin g e ris le s s th a n c le a rab o u t w h a t, p r e c is e ly , h e b e lie v e s m u s t tr a n s p ir e “in c o m m e r c e ” to s a tis f

y th e s ta tu te ; w h a t is c le a r ly in s u f f ic ie n t, th o u g h , in h is v ie w , is

“ [ t ] r a ve l i ng [ i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ] orus i ng f a c i l i t i e s ori ns trum e nt a l i t i e s [ of i n t erst at e co m m erce] befo re o r aft er co m m i tt i n g th e o ffen se. ” Id . In o th er w o rd s, B a l l i nge re nvi s i ons the s t a tut e a s pr os c r i bi ng onl y thos e of f e ns e s i n w hi c h the pr e c i s e m e e t i ng of

f l a m e a nd c hur c h oc c ur s i n c om m e r c e - - notthos e i n w hi c h the23

of f e nde rr e l i e s on the c ha nne l s a nd i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of c om m e r c e t o c a rry outthe of f e ns e . W e di s a gr e e w i th thi s unus ua l l y l i m i t e d r e a di ng of § 247. A. T he fund am ent al fl aw i n A pp el l ant ’ s r ea di ng of § 2 47 i s thati tm i sc on ce i ves th e stru ctu re o f th e co m m erce p o w er an d th e l i n g u i st i c t o o l s em p l o yed b y C o n g ress in d e f in in g th e ju r is d ic tio n a l r e a c h o f § 2 4 7 . A n in te rp r e ta tio n o f a n y s ta tu te e na c t e d pur s ua ntt o the c om m e r c e pow e rm us tbe i nf or m e d by the c ont e nta nd c o n to u r s o f

C o n g r e s s ’ a u th o r ity u n d e rth e C o m m e r c e C la u s e a n d th e lin g u is tic t ool s a ti t s di s pos a l t o e xe r ttha tpow e r . I n the c a s e of § 247, onl y w he n the st atut ory l angu age i s r em ov ed com pl et el y f rom the backdrop of the com m er ce po w erfr om w hi ch i tar i se s i s there any a m bi gu i ty abo uti t s m ea ni ng . A gl ance at th e h is to ry o f

C o m m e r c e C la u s e le g is la tio n th a t p r e c e d e d a n d in f o r m e d § 2 4 7 's enac tm entm akes pl ai n that§ 2 47 ’ s e xp re ss j uri sdi ct i on al l angu age - - r equi ri ng that the of f e ns e i s “ i n ora f

f e c t s c om m e r c e ” - - i s a t e r m of a r t , w hos e s e tt l e d, s p e c ia liz e d m e a n in g c a n a n d m u s t b e g iv e n e f f e c t. A s w e have al re ady s ai d, the S up re m e C ou rti n L op ez art i cul at ed three broad c a t e gor i e s of

C ongr e s s ’ C om m e r c e C l a us e a uthor i ty : r e gul a t i on of the c ha nne l s of i nt er st at e c om m er ce ; re gu l at i on of the i nstrum ent al i t i es of i nt er st at e c om m er ce ; a n d r e g u la tio n o f

in tr a s ta te c o n d u c t th a t s u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c ts in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e .24

S ee L op ez , 51 4 U . S . at55 8-59 . C on gres s m ay i nv ok e a ny or al l of these three c a t e gor i e s of

c om m e r c e pow e ri n a ny pi e c e of l e gi s l a t i on. F orthi s purpos e , the S upr e m e C our tha s t a ught , C ongr e s s ha s a ti t s di s pos a l a s pe c i a l i z e d s e tof l i ng ui st i c t oo l s thatenabl e i tt o cl ea rl y e xp re ss j ustw hattype of c om m er ce a u th o r ity it is a s s e r tin g . T h e h is to ry o f

C o m m e r c e C la u s e e n a c tm e n ts r e v e a ls th a t th e te r m s “in c o m m e r c e ” a n d “a f

f e c tin g c o m m e r c e ” a r e o n e s C o n g r e s s u s e s r e g u la r ly to c r e a te f e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o i t s c om m e r c e pow e r , a nd thus the s e t e r m s ha ve t ak en o n p art i cu l ari zed m ean i n g s. S ee, e. g . , C i rcu i tC i ty S t o res, In c. v . A d am s, 53 2 U . S . 10 5, 11 5, 12 1 S . C t . 13 02 , 14 9 L . E d. 2d 23 4 (20 01 ) ( ob se rvi ng that

“ C ongr e s s us e s di f

f e r e ntm odi f

i e r s t o the w or d ‘ c om m e r c e ’ i n the de s i gn a nd enac tm entof i t s s t atut es , ” a nd thatthese m od i fi er s have t aken on very part i cul ar m e a ni ngs ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A m . B ui l di ng M a i nt e na nc e I ndus . , 422 U . S . 271, 280, 9 5 S . C t. 2 1 5 0 , 4 5 L . E d . 2 d 1 7 7 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ( o b s e r v in g th a t C o n g r e s s h a s “r e p e a te d ly a c k n o w le d g e d its r e c o g n itio n o f th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n le g is la tio n lim ite d to ac t i vi t i es ‘ i n com m er ce , ’ and an ass ert i on of i t s f ul l C om m er ce C l ause po w erso as to c o v e ra ll a c tiv ity s u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c tin g in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” ) . T h e “in c om m e r c e ” l a ngua ge de not e s the f i r s ttw o L ope z c a t e gor i e s - - r e gul a t i on of the channel s a nd of the i nstrum ent al i t i es of com m er ce . T he “ af fe ct i ng com m er ce ”25

l angu age i nv ok es the thi rd L op ez ca t egory - - r egul at i on of i ntra st at e a ct i vi t i es that s u b s ta n tia lly a f

f e c t c o m m e r c e . T h e w o r d s “a f

f e c tin g c o m m e r c e ,” a s th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s r e p e a te d ly ex p l ai n ed , are “w o rd s o f artth ato rd i n ari l y si g n al th e b ro ad estp erm i ssi b l e ex erci se o f Co n g r e s s ’ Co mme r c e Cl a u s e p o w e r . ” Ci t i z e n s Ba n k v . A l a f ab c o , I n c . , 5 3 9 U . S. 52, 56, 123 S . C t . 2037, 156 L . E d. 2d 46 ( 2003) ; s e e a l s o C i r c ui tC i ty S t or e s , 532 U .S . a t 1 1 5 ( “T h e p h r a s e ‘a f f e c tin g c o m m e r c e ’ in d ic a te s C o n g r e s s ’ in te n t to r e gul a t e t o the out e rl i m i t s of i t s a uthor i ty unde rthe C om m e r c e C l a us e . ” ) ; J one s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 529 U . S . 848, 856, 120 S . C t . 1904, 146 L . E d. 2d 902 ( 2000) ( n o tin g “th e r e c o g n iz e d d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n le g is la tio n lim ite d to a c tiv itie s ‘in c o m m e r c e ’ a n d le g is la tio n in v o k in g C o n g r e s s ’s f u ll p o w e ro v e ra c tiv ity s ubs t a nt i a l l y ‘ a f

f e c t i ng . . . c om m e r c e ’ ” ) ; A l l i e d- B ruc e T e r m i ni x C os . v. D obs on, 513 U . S . 265, 277, 115 S . C t . 834, 130 L . E d. 2d 753 ( 1995) ( “ [ T ] he w or ds

‘ af fe ct i ng com m er ce ’ . . . no rm al l y m ea n a ful l exer ci se of const i tut i on al po w er ”) ; U n i t ed S t at es v . O d o m , 2 5 2 F . 3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). A cco rd i n g l y, th ese w o r d s in v o k e th e th ir d a n d b r o a d e s t L o p e z c a te g o ry - - th e p o w e rto r e g u la te ac t i vi t i es thatsubst ant i al l y “ af fe ct ” c om m er ce . T he w ords “ i n com m er ce , ” i n sharp cont ra st , have a m uch n arrow er m ea ni ng . T he C ou rthas notdefi ned the exactpara m et er s of the t erm , w hi ch m ay26

v a ry b y c o n te x t, s e e A m . B u ild in g M a in te n a n c e , 4 2 2 U .S . a t 2 7 7 ( “T h e p h r a s e ‘in com m er ce ’ do es no t , of course , nece ss ar i l y have aun i form m ea ni ng w henever u sed b y C o n g ress. ”); i th as, h o w ev er, stressed rep eat ed l y th at“ i n co m m erce” is a p h r a s e th a t e x p r e s s e s C o n g r e s s ’ in te n t to in v o k e le s s th a n th e f u ll r e a c h o f

its c om m e r c e pow e r . T he C our tha s e xpl a i ne d tha t , “ [ u] nl i ke [ the phr a s e s ‘ i nvol vi ng c om m e r c e ’ a nd ‘ a f

f e c t i ng c om m e r c e ’ ] , . . . the ge ne r a l w or ds ‘ i n c om m e r c e ’ a nd the spec i fi c phras e ‘ engaged i n com m er ce ’ ar e und er st oo d t o h ave am ore l i m i t ed r e a c h. . . . [ T ] he w or ds ‘ i n c om m e r c e ’ a r e ‘ of t e n- f ound w or ds of

a r t ’ tha tw e ha ve notr e a d a s e xpr e s s i ng c ongr e s s i ona l i nt e ntt o r e gul a t e t o the out e rl i m i t s of a uthor i ty unde rthe C om m e r c e C l a us e . ” C i r c ui tC i ty S t or e s , 532 U . S . a t115- 16 ( quot i ng A l l i e d- B ruc e , 513 U . S . a t273) ; s e e a l s o A m . B ui l di ng M a i nt e na nc e , 422 U .S . a t 2 7 6 ( n o tin g th a t th e “d is tin c t” a n d “n a rr o w ” ju r is d ic tio n a l p h r a s e “in c om m e r c e ” “ c a nnotbe s a t i s f i e d m e r e l y by s how i ng tha tthe [ a c t i vi t i e s i n que s t i on] a f f e c tc om m e r c e ” ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) ) ; i d. a t280 (not i ng thatby 19 50 , “ the ph ra se ‘ engaged i n com m er ce ’ had l on g si nce becom e a t e r m of a r t , i ndi c a t i ng a l i m i t e d a s s e r t i on of f e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on” ) ; G ul f O i l C orp. v. C o p p P a v in g C o ., 4 1 9 U .S . 1 8 6 , 1 9 5 , 9 5 S . C t. 3 9 2 , 4 2 L . E d . 2 d 3 7 8 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . T hus , a s t a tut e e m pl oy i ng the l a ngua ge “ i n c om m e r c e , ” the C our tha s s a i d, c ove r s “ onl y pe r s ons ora c t i vi t i e s w i thi n the f l ow of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” A l l i e d-27

B ruc e , 513 U . S . a t273 ( quot i ng A m . B ui l di ng M a i nt e na nc e , 422 U . S . a t276 ( quot i ng G ul f

O i l , 419 U . S . a t195) ) ; s e e a l s o G ul f O i l , 419 U . S . a t195 ( “ [ T ] he di st i nct‘ i n com m er ce ’ l angu age of the C l ay t on and R ob i nson -P atm an A ct pr ovi s i ons w i th w hi c h w e a r e c onc e rne d he r e appe a r s t o de not e onl y pe r s ons or a c tiv itie s w ith in th e f

lo w o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e - - th e p r a c tic a l, e c o n o m ic c o n tin u ity in th e g e n e r a tio n o f g o o d s a n d s e r v ic e s f

o rin te r s ta te m a r k e ts a n d th e ir tr a n s p o r t a n d d is tr ib u tio n to th e c o n s u m e r .” ) . F or m ore than 1 75 ye ar s of C om m er ce C l ause prec edent , thi s m uch h as been c l e a r : “ W i thi n the f

l ow of c om m e r c e ” de not e s m ove m e ntorpe opl e orthi ngs a c r os s i nt e r s t a t e bor de r s . S e e , e . g. , G i bbons v. O gde n, 22 U . S . ( 9 W he a t . ) 1, 189- 90, 6 L . E d. 23 ( 1824) ( “ C om m e r c e , undoubt e dl y , i s tr a f f i c , buti ti s s om e thi ng m ore: i ti s i nt er course . ”) ; H ea rtof A t l ant a, 37 9 U . S . at25 5-56 (not i ng that

“ i nt er course ” i ncl ud es “ the m ov em entof pers on s throu gh m ore S t at es than o ne”) ; C ha m pi on v. A m e s , 188 U . S . 321, 352, 23 S . C t . 321, 47 L . E d. 492 ( 1903) ( “ C om m e r c e w a s de f

i ne d i n G i bbons v. O gde n t o be ‘ i nt e r c our s e , ’ a nd the th o u s a n d s o f

p e o p le w h o d a ily p a s s a n d r e p a s s o v e rth is b r id g e m a y b e a s tru ly s a id t o be e nga ge d i n c om m e r c e a s i f the y w e r e s hi ppi ng c a r goe s of m e r c ha ndi s e f

r om N e w Y o r k to L iv e rp o o l.” ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( q u o tin g C o v in g to n & C in c in n a ti B ri dg e C o. v. K entucky, 15 4 U . S . 20 4, 21 8, 14 S . C t . 10 87 , 38 L . E d. 96 2 (18 94 )) );28

id . a t 3 5 1 ( “C o m m e r c e w ith f o r e ig n c o u n tr ie s a n d a m o n g th e s ta te s , s tr ic tly c ons i de r e d, c ons i s t s i n i nt e r c our s e a nd tr a f f i c , i nc l udi ng i n the s e t e r m s na vi ga t i on and the tra nspo rt at i on and tra nsi tof pers on s a nd prop erty, as w el l as the pu rc hase , s a l e , a nd e xc ha nge of

c om m odi t i e s . ” ( quot i ng C ounty of M obi l e v. K i m ba l l , 102 U . S . 69 1, 70 2, 12 O tt o 6 91 , 26 L . E d. 23 8 (18 80 )) ); C am ps N ew foun d/ O w at on na, I nc . v. T ow n of

H a rr i s on, 520 U . S . 564, 573, 117 S . C t . 1590, 137 L . E d. 2d 852 (199 7) (“ [T ] he tra nspo rt at i on of pers on s a cr oss s t at e l i nes . . . has l on g b ee n r e c ogni z e d a s a f

or m of ‘ c om m e r c e . ’ ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , the j ur i s di c t i ona l l a ngua ge “in c o m m e r c e ” in v o k e s C o n g r e s s ’ a u th o r ity to r e g u la te o n ly th e c h a n n e ls w ith in w hi c h pe opl e a nd goods m ove thr ough the f l ow of c om m e r c e , a s w e l l a s the i nstrum ent al i t i es used t o fac i l i t at e thatm ov em ent-- thati s, the L op ez 1 and L op ez 2 pow e r s . A s t a tut e tha tus e s onl y the “ i n c om m e r c e ” l a ngua ge s t ops w e l l s hor tof i nvoki ng C ongr e s s ’ L ope z 3 pow e rt o r e gul a t e a c t i vi t i e s out s i de the c ha nne l s a nd i nstrum ent al i t i es of com m er ce thatno nethel es s s ub st ant i al l y “ af fe ct ” c om m er ce . R ec og ni zi ng the i m po rt ance of pres ervi ng ea sy l i ng ui st i c t oo l s by w hi ch C o n g r e s s c a n a r tic u la te ju s t h o w m u c h o f its c o m m e r c e p o w e rit m a y c h o o s e to e xe r ti n a pa r t i c ul a rs t a tut ory e na c tm e nt , the S upr e m e C our tha s be e n unw a ve r i ng i n i t s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the s e c om m e r c e - m odi f y i ng t e r m s . S e e , e . g. , A m . B ui l di ng M a i nt e na nc e , 422 U . S . a t280 ( “ [ T ] he C our tha [ s ] dr a w n a s ha rp di s t i nc t i on29

betw ee n act i vi t i es i n the fl ow of i nt er st at e c om m er ce and i ntra st at e a ct i vi t i es that af fe cti nt er st at e c om m er ce . ”) . T hei r m ea ni ng s a re w el l se tt l ed, and the C ou rt c ons i s t e nt l y de c l i ne s t o a l t e rthe m . S e e , e . g. , C i r c ui tC i ty S t or e s , 532 U . S . a t117 ( “ T he C our t ’ s r e l uc t a nc e t o a c c e ptc ont e nt i ons tha tC ongr e s s us e d the w or ds [ i n a m a n n e rin c o n s is te n t w ith th e irs ta n d a r d m e a n in g s ] r e s ts o n s o u n d f o u n d a tio n , a s it affo rd s o b

j ect i v e an d co n si st en tsi g n i fi can ce t o th e m ean i n g o f th e w o rd s C o n g ress u s e s w h e n i td e f

i n e s th e r e a c h o f

a s t a tu t e . ” ) ; A m. Bu i l d i n g M a i n t e n a n c e , 4 2 2 U . S. a t280- 81 ( c i t i ng the N L R A a nd the B i tum i nous C oa l A c tof 1937 a s e xa m pl e s of C ongr e s s ’ us e of

“ a f f e c t i ng c om m e r c e , ” a nd the 1950 a m e ndm e ntt o s e c t i on 7 of the C l ay t on A ctas an exam pl e of adeci si on by C on gres s t o “ re t ai n[] the narrow er ‘in c o m m e r c e ’ f

o r m u la tio n ” ) . In fa ct , the S up re m e C ou rthas r ej ec t ed the sugg es t i on that“ i n com m er ce ” a nd “ a f f e c t i ng c om m e r c e ” m a y be c onf l a t e d orr e a d i nt e r c ha nge abl y : “ T he c o n te n tio n th a t ‘in c o m m e r c e ’ s h o u ld b e r e a d a s if it m e a n t ‘a f

f e c tin g in te r s ta te c om m e r c e ’ w a s e m pha t i c a l l y r e j e c t e d [ by the C our ti n F T C v. B unt e B r os . , 312 U . S . 349, 61 S . C t . 580, 85 L . E d. 881 ( 1941) ] . ” A m . B ui l di ng M a i nt e na nc e , 422 U . S . at27 6. S o “ fa r- re ac hi ng ” a n app l i ca t i on of the st atut e i n q uest i on , the C ou rt s a id , “o u g h t to a w a it a c le a r e rm a n d a te f r o m C o n g r e s s .” I d . a t 2 7 7 . T h e B u n te B r o s . d e c is io n “s tr e s s e d th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n u n f a irm e th o d s o f

c o m p e titio n ‘in30

c om m e r c e ’ a nd thos e tha t‘ a f f e c t e d c om m e r c e , ’ i n l i m i t i ng the s c ope of the [ F T C ’s ] a u th o r ity u n d e rth e ‘in c o m m e r c e ’ la n g u a g e .” I d . a t 2 8 0 . I n S c a rbor ough v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 431 U . S . 563, 97 S . C t . 1963, 52 L . E d. 2d 582 ( 1977) , the C our tr e i t e r a t e d thi s poi nt . A ti s s ue i n S c a rbor ough w a s the m ean i n g o f T i t l e 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 0 2 (a), w h i ch p en al i zes an y fel o n “ w h o recei v es, po ss es se s, or transpo rt s i n com m er ce or af fe ct i ng com m er ce ” afi re arm . § 1 20 2(a) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). A gai n, the C ou rtob se rved that“ C on gres s i s a w ar e of the di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n l e gi s l a t i on l i m i t e d t o a c t i vi t i e s ‘ i n c om m e r c e ’ a nd a n a s s e r t i on of i t s f ul l C om m e r c e C l a us e pow e rs o a s t o c ove ra l l a c t i vi ty s ubs t a nt i a l l y a f f e c t i ng i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” S ca rborou gh , 43 1 U . S . at57 1 (ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . T hus , the C our tf ound i t“ appa r e nttha t. . . by p ro h i b i t i n g b o th p o ssessi o n s i n co m m erce an d th o se affecti n g co m m erce, C o n g ress m u s t h a v e m e a n t m o r e th a n to o u tla w s im p ly th o s e p o s s e s s io n s th a t o c c u rin c om m e r c e ori n i nt e r s t a t e f a c i l i t i e s . ” I d. a t572. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t s im ila r ly d e c lin e d to c o n f la te th e p h r a s e “u s e d in ” w ith “a f f e c t” in J o n e s v . U n ite d S ta te s , a c a s e in te rp r e tin g th e f e d e r a l a r s o n s ta tu te , § 84 4(i ). In Jones, the C ou rtas si gn ed greatsi gn i fi ca nce t o the part i cul arcom m er ce m odi f y i ng l a ngua ge s e l e c t e d by C ongr e s s , obs e r vi ng tha t“ C ongr e s s di d notde f i ne the c r i m e de s c r i be d i n § 844( i ) a s the e xpl os i on of a bui l di ng w hos e da m a ge or31

de s truc t i on m i ghta f

f e c ti nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , ” butr a the r“ r e qui r e [ d] tha tthe dam aged or destroye d p roperty m usti t se l f have been used i n com m er ce or i n an a c tiv ity a f

f e c tin g c o m m e r c e .” J o n e s , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 8 5 4 ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) (e m ph as i s a dd ed) ( qu ot i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. M ennu t i , 63 9 F . 2d 10 7, 11 0 (2d C i r. 19 81 ). T he C ou rtre fuse d t o rea d § 84 4(i ) s o that“ the st atut e’ s l i m i t i ng l angu age,

‘ used i n’ any c om m er ce -a ff ec t i ng ac t i vi ty, w ou l d h ave no o ff i ce , ” not i ng that “[j] u d g es sh o u ld h es it ate . . . to trea t statu to ry term s in an y s etti n g [a s s u rp lu sa g e], and res i st ance shou l d b e hei gh t ened w hen the w ords desc ri be an el em entof a c r i m i na l of

f e ns e . ” I d. a t857 ( om i s s i on a nd s e c ond a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) ( quot i ng R a t z l a f v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 510 U . S . 135, 140- 41, 114 S . C t . 655, 126 L . E d. 2d 615 (199 4)). E ve n i f w e ha d a ny doubtw he the rC ongr e s s w a s us i ng “ i n c om m e r c e ” a nd

“ a f f e c t s c om m e r c e ” a s t e r m s of a r ti n thi s c a s e , l ooki ng t o the pr e - 1996 ve r s i on of § 2 4 7 w o u ld e r a s e a ll u n c e r ta in ty o n th is s c o r e . P r io rto its a m e n d m e n t in 1 9 9 6 , § 2 4 7 s p e c if

ic a lly p r o h ib ite d th e d e s tru c tio n o f r e lig io u s p r o p e r ty w h e n , in com m i tt i ng the offens e, the defendanttra vel ed i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . T he pre1 9 9 6 s ta tu te p r o v id e d in p e r tin e n t p a r t: ( a ) W h o e v e rin a n y o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s r e f

e rr e d to in s u b s e c tio n ( b ) o f th is se ct i on -- (1 ) i n t en t i o n al l y d efaces, dam ag es, o r d estro ys an y rel i g i o u s real p ro p erty, be c a us e of

the r e l i gi ous c ha r a c t e rof tha tpr ope r ty , ora tt e m pt s t o do s o; or32

. . . . s ha l l be puni s he d a s pr ovi de d i n s ubs e c t i on ( c ) of thi s s e c t i on. (b) T he ci rc um st ance s r ef erre d t o i n sub se ct i on (a ) a re that-- ( 1) i n c om m i tt i ng the of f e ns e , the de f

e nda nttr a ve l s i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e , orus e s a f

a c i l i ty ori ns trum e nt a l i ty of i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn c om m e r c e i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e ; a nd ( 2) i n the c a s e of

a n of f e ns e unde rs ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 1) , the l os s r e s ul t i ng f r om the de f a c e m e nt , da m a ge , orde s truc t i on i s m or e tha n $10, 000. P u b . L . N o . 1 0 0 - 3 4 6 , § 1 , 1 0 2 S ta t. 6 4 4 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . I n a m e ndi ng the s t a tut e e i ghty e a r s l a t e r , C ongr e s s s i m pl y s ubs t i tut e d i n the j ur i s di c t i ona l l a ngua ge “ tha tthe of f e ns e i s i n ora f

f e c t s i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn com m er ce ” f

or the ori gi nal j uri sdi ct i on al l angu age that“ i n com m i tt i ng the offens e, the de f e nda nttr a ve l s i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e , orus e s a f a c i l i ty or i ns trum e nt a l i ty of

i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn c om m e r c e i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn com m er ce . ” A l l thatC on gres s di d w as (1) e m pl oy the shorthand “ i n com m er ce ” r a the rtha n de s c r i bi ng the s ubs t a nt i ve r e qui r e m e ntof us e of the c ha nne l s or i nstrum ent al i t i es of com m er ce ; and (2) expand the j uri sdi ct i on al ho ok t o cov er o f f e n s e s th a t “a f

f e c t” c o m m e r c e , th e r e b y in v o k in g f o rth e f ir s t tim e a ll o f

its c om m e r c e pow e r . A s the H ous e R e por ta c c om pa ny i ng the bi l l e xpl a i ne d, the p u rp o s e o f

r e v is in g th e ju r is d ic tio n a l la n g u a g e w a s to “s im p lif[ y ] th e in te r s ta te com m er ce re qu i re m entof the curre ntl aw , ” H . R . R ep. N o. 10 4-62 1, at2, re pri nt ed i n 1996 U . S . C . C . A . N . 1082, 1083, w hos e “ hi ghl y r e s tr i c t i ve a nd dupl i c a t i ve33

la n g u a g e ” m a d e it d if

f ic u lt to p r o s e c u te c a s e s u n d e r§ 2 4 7 , id . a t 4 , r e p r in te d in 1996 U . S . C . C . A . N . a t1085. N ot abl y , the a m e ndm e ntl e f tthe de f i ni t i on of the of f e ns e i t s e l f

a l one , a l t e r i ng onl y the j ur i s di c t i ona l s c ope of the s t a tut e . I n f

a c t , the ne w l a ngua ge w a s s pe c i f i c a l l y dr a f

t e d t o m i rr orthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s a r t i c ul a t i on in L o p e z o f

th e n a tu r e a n d e x te n t o f th e c o m m e r c e p o w e r . S e e id . a t 7 , r e p r in te d in 1 9 9 6 U .S .C .C .A .N . at 1 0 8 8 (“T h is C o m m ittee is a w ar e o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s rul i ng i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ope z . . . . [ T he a m e nde d § 247] , by c ontr a s t[ t o the s t a tut e s truc k dow n i n L ope z ] , s pe c i f i c a l l y l i m i t s i t s r e a c h t o c onduc tw hi c h c a n be s h o w n to b e in o rto a f

f e c t in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e .” ) . S i m pl y put , § 247 c ont a i ns una m bi guous j ur i s di c t i ona l l a ngua ge - - c ove r i ng o f f e n s e s in o ra f

f e c tin g c o m m e r c e - - th a t m u s t b e g iv e n its p r o p e re f f e c t. I n th is i m po rt antre spec t , § 2 47 di ff er s s i gn i fi ca nt l y f

rom the st atut e i nv al i dat ed i n L op ez , w h i c h d i d n o tc o n t a i n a n y c l a r i f y i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a t e me n t , s e e Lo p e z , 5 1 4 U . S. at56 1, thu s l ea vi ng subst ant i al am bi gu i ty abo utw hi ch type of c om m er ce po w er C ongr e s s i nt e nde d t o e xe r t , s e e i d. a t559. H e r e , i n s ha rp c ontr a s t , by us i ng the ph ra se “ i n o r a ff

ec t s c om m er ce , ” C on gres s has cl ea rl y i nv ok ed L op ez ca t egory 3 -- i t s pow ert o regul at e a ct i vi t i es thatsubst ant i al l y a ff ec ti nt er st at e c om m er ce -- as w e l l a s c a t e gor i e s 1 a nd 2 - - i t s pow e rt o r e gul a t e the us e of the c ha nne l s a nd i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . B a l l i nge rpl a i nl y us e d both c ha nne l s a nd34

i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

c om m e r c e t o f

a c i l i t a t e hi s e l e ve n- c hur c h a r s on s pr e e ; thus , he c o m m itte d h is o f

f e n s e s “in c o m m e r c e ” w ith in th e p r e c is e m e a n in g o f th e s ta tu te . A n y o th er read i n g w o u l d co n trav en e m o re th an a cen tu ry o f C o m m erce C l au se p reced en tb y fai l i n g t o g i v e th e j u ri sd i ct i o n al w o rd s ex p ressl y ch o sen b y C o n g ress i n am en d i n g § 2 4 7 th ei r l o n g -sett l ed m ean i n g s. Indeed, B al l i ng er ’ s i nt erpret at i on of § 2 47 w ou l d rea d the “ i n com m er ce ” l a ngua ge outof

the s t a tut e a l t oge the r . T he A ppe l l a nt ’ s c i r c um s c r i be d c ons truc t i on o f § 2 4 7 a s ap p ly in g o n ly w h e n th e u ltim a te d e s tru c tio n o f th e c h u r c h its e lf happ ens i n com m er ce (or a ff ec t s c om m er ce ) e ff

ec t i vel y e xci se s the “ i n com m er ce ” b a s is f o rju r is d ic tio n f

r o m th e s ta tu te . I n f

a c t, th e A p p e lla n t a r g u e d e x p lic itly to the e n ba nc C our ttha t“ § 247 appl i e s onl y t o c a s e s ha vi ng a s ubs t a nt i a l e f f e c ton i nt er st at e c om m er ce , and d oes notappl y t o si tuat i on s w here the offens e w as c om m i tt e d orf

a c i l i t a t e d thr ough the i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , or thr ough i nt e r s t a t e tr a ve l . ” A ppe l l a nt ’ s E n B a nc B r . a t20. A l though the A ppe l l a nt o f f e r e d a t o r a l a r g u m e n t s e v e r a l s tr a in e d e x a m p le s o f o f f e n s e s h e b e lie v e d w o u ld be “ i n com m er ce , ” hi s a rgum enti n h i s bri ef that§ 2 47 appl i es “ on l y t o cas es havi ng a s ub st ant i al ef

fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce ” s ug gest s thateven he bel i eves h is in te rp r e ta tio n o f

“in c o m m e r c e ” to b e v ir tu a lly im p o s s ib le to s a tis f y . T he A pp el l ant ’ s r em arkabl y c on stri ct ed re adi ng of the “ i n com m er ce ”35

l a ngua ge e f

f e c t i ve l y s tr i ps thos e w or ds of a ny f or c e a ta l l . I ti s di f

f i c ul tt o i m a gi ne a c a s e th a t m o r e c la s s ic a lly d e p ic ts a r s o n o c c u rr in g in c o m m e r c e th a n B a llin g e r ’s . If § 2 47 ' s prohi bi t i on on destroyi ng re l i gi ou s property i n com m er ce do es no tre ac h B al l i ng er ’ s f

ou r- st at e c hu rc h-ar son spree , there i s i m pl ausi bl y l i tt l e, i f a ny, cond uct i ta c tua l l y pr os c r i be s . T o dr e a m up a n of f e ns e i n w hi c h the f

i na l a c tof

de s truc t i on a c tua l l y oc c ur s “ i n c om m e r c e ” i s di f f i c ul t , i f noti m pos s i bl e . E ve n i f the p e rp e tr a to rw e r e to ig n ite a f ir e in F lo r id a , f

o re x a m p le , ju s t o v e rth e G e o r g ia s ta te l i ne , a nd w a i tf

ori tt o burn i t s w a y a c r os s the bor de rt o a ne a rby G e or gi a c hur c h, the offens e, as the A pp el l antse es i t , w ou l d st i l l no tbe i n com m er ce because the ac t o f d e s tru c tio n , th o u g h s e t in to m o tio n in F lo r id a , a c tu a lly o c c u r s in G e o r g ia . A s th i s ex am p l e i l l u strat es, th e A p p el l an t ’ s cram p ed read i n g o f th e o ffen se as com pri si ng on l y the ul t i m at e des truct i on of the t ar get ed prop erty s ever s unna tur a l l y the of

f e nde rf r om the of

f e ns e . S e c t i on 247’ s r e gul a t ory a nd puni t i ve f oc us i s c l e a r l y on the of f e nde r , pr ovi di ng tha t“ W hoe ve r. . . de f a c e s , da m a ge s or d e s tr o y s a n y r e lig io u s r e a l p r o p e r ty . . . s h a ll b e p u n is h e d ,” § 2 4 7 ( a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; n e v e r th e le s s , th e A p p e lla n t’s r e a d in g a c c o m m o d a te s o n ly th e o f f e n s e . A m o re reaso n ab l e read i n g w o u l d ack n o w l ed g e th atth e o ffen se i s m o re th an th e l ast st ep i n a se qu ence of ac t s thatadd u p t o the st atut ori l y prohi bi t ed cond uct . T ra vel t o the s i t e of

the f i r e a nd pr oc ur e m e ntof

the m a t e r i a l s f

orthe s pe c i f

i c purpos e of36

b u rn in g a c h u r c h a r e n e c e s s a ry a n d in d is p e n s ab le s te p s in c o m m ittin g a r s o n . W h e n th e a r s o n is t ta k e s th e s e s te p s in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , h is o f f e n s e f a lls w ith in C on gres s’ po w ert o regul at e the channel s a nd i nstrum ent al i t i es of com m er ce un der a ll b u t th e m o s t a r tif

ic ia lly c o n s tr a in e d r e a d in g o f “o f f e n s e .” B y di sc ar di ng the “ i n com m er ce ” bas i s f or j uri sdi ct i on , B al l i ng erhas e s s e n tia lly r e d r a f

te d th e s ta tu te to r e a d s o m e th in g lik e th is : “W h o e v e rs u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c t s i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e by de f a c i ng, da m a gi ng, orde s tr oy i ng r e l i gi ous p ro p erty . . . sh al l b e p u n i sh ed . ” T h i s read i n g i g n o res th e factth atC o n g ress expl i ci t l y, on the fa ce of the st atut e, used a di sj un ct i ve “ i n o r a ff ec t s” com m er ce j ur i s di c t i ona l pr e di c a t e . I n a ddi t i on t o di s pe ns i ng w i th the pl a i n l a ngua ge of the st atut e, the A pp el l ant ’ s r ea di ng di sr egar ds the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s r epea t ed adm on i t i on thatthe t erm s “ i n com m er ce ” a nd “ af fe ctcom m er ce ” m ustbe gi ven the i rs e pa r a t e a nd di s t i nc tm e a ni ngs . M or e ove r , thi s e f f e c t i ve r e w r i t i ng of

the s t a tut e s tr i ps C ongr e s s of i t s c ons t i tut i ona l a uthor i ty t o r e gul a t e the c ha nne l s a nd in s tru m e n ta litie s o f

c o m m e r c e ( L o p e z 1 & 2 ) , le a v in g it w ith o n ly its le s s - w e lld e f in e d p o w e rto r e g u la te p u r e ly in tr a s ta te a c tiv itie s th a t m a y s u b s ta n tia lly “a f f e c t” com m er ce (L op ez 3). I n a d d itio n to e v is c e r a tin g th e s ta tu te s u b s ta n tiv e ly , r e a d in g o u t “in com m er ce ” c on tra venes bas i c c anon s of s t atut ory i nt erpret at i on . F or on e, an37

i nt erpret at i on thatfa i l s t o g i ve any m ea ni ng atal l t o the st atut e’ s “ i n com m er ce ” la n g u a g e v io la te s “‘a c a r d in a l p r in c ip le o f s ta tu to ry c o n s tru c tio n ’ th a t ‘a s ta tu te ou gh t , up on the w ho l e, t o b e s o con strued that , i f i tca n b e pre vent ed, no cl ause , s e nt e nc e , orw or d s ha l l be s upe r f l uous , voi d, ori ns i gni f

i c a nt . ” T R W , I nc . v. A ndr e w s , 534 U . S . 19, 31, 122 S . C t . 441, 151 L . E d. 2d 339 ( 2001) ( quot i ng D un ca n v . W al ker, 53 3 U . S . 16 7, 17 4, 12 1 S . C t . 21 20 , 15 0 L . E d. 2d 25 1 (20 01 )) ; se e a lso L eo ca l v . A sh cr o ft, N o . 0 3 -5 8 3 , sli p o p . at 1 0 (S . C t. N o v . 9 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( “[W ]e m us tgi ve e f

f e c tt o e ve ry w or d of

a s t a tut e w he r e ve rpos s i bl e . . . . ” ) ; T R W , 534 U .S . a t 3 1 ( “W e a r e ‘r e lu c ta n t to tr e a t s ta tu to ry te r m s a s s u rp lu s a g e in a n y s e ttin g ,’ and w e dec l i ne t o d o so h er e. ” ( qu ot i ng D un ca n, 53 3 U . S . at17 4)); U ni t ed S t at es v. M e a ns c he , 348 U . S . 528, 538- 39, 75 S . C t . 513, 99 L . E d. 615 ( 1955) ( “ I ti s our duty ‘ t o gi ve e f

f e c t , i f pos s i bl e , t o e ve ry c l a us e a nd w or d of a s t a tut e . ’ ” ( quot i ng M ont c l a i rv. R a m s de l l , 107 U . S . 147, 152, 17 O tt o 147, 2 S . C t . 391, 27 L . E d. 431 (188 3))) . B a llin g e rd o e s n o t c o n te n d th a t it is im p o s s ib le to g iv e e f f e c t to th e “in com m er ce ” l angu age. Indeed, t o g i ve m ea ni ng t o the ph ra se “ i n com m er ce ” req u i res l o o k i n g n o fu rth er th an th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s rep eat ed st at em en tth atth o se w ords re fe r t o “ pers on s or a ct i vi t i es w i thi n the fl ow of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” A l l i ed-B ruce , 51 3 U . S . at27 3 (qu ot i ng A m . B ui l di ng M ai nt enance, 42 2 U . S . at38

276 ( quot i ng G ul f

O i l , 419 U . S . a t195) ) . A c c or di ngl y , the onl y w a y t o r e a d § 247 i s a s c ove r i ng a r s ons tha t“ a f f e c tc om m e r c e ” a nd a r s ons tha toc c ur“ w i thi n the f l ow o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e .” “[ C ]o u r ts m u s t p r e s u m e th a t a le g is la tu r e s a y s in a s ta tu te w ha ti tm e a ns a nd m e a ns i n a s t a tut e w ha ti ts a y s the r e . ” C onn. N a t ’ l B a nk v. G erm ai n, 50 3 U . S . 24 9, 25 3-54 , 11 2 S . C t . 11 46 , 11 7 L . E d. 2d 39 1 (19 92 ). H er e, C o n g r e s s s a id - - a n d p la in ly m e a n t - - th a t a r s o n is a n o f f e n s e th a t c a n n o t o n ly af fe ctcom m er ce , bu tal so ac tual l y occ ur i n com m er ce . T hu s, w e c anno t , as A ppe l l a ntw oul d ha ve us do, s e e A ppe l l a nt ’ s E n B a nc B r . a t20, s i m pl y di s m i s s the p o s s ib ility th a t a r s o n c o u ld e v e ro c c u r“in c o m m e r c e .” I n a ddi t i on, r e a di ng the l i ngui s t i c a l l y r i c h t e r m “ i n c om m e r c e ” outof the s t a tut e vi ol a t e s the pr i nc i pl e tha ts t a tut ory l a ngua ge m us tbe r e a d i n the c ont e xtof the purpos e i tw a s i nt e nde d t o s e r ve . C ongr e s s doe s notw r i t e s t a tut e s f orthe w or ds - - i tw r i t e s the m f orthe m e a ni ng. A c c or di ngl y , w or ds m us tbe r e a d t o ha ve a purpo se , and from thei r purpo se they c anno tbe del i nk ed. T he S up re m e C ou rt ha s e xpl a i ne d: “ A s i n a l l c a s e s of s t a tut ory c ons truc t i on, ourt a s k i s t o i nt e rpr e tthe w ords of these st atut es i n l i gh tof the pu rposes C on gres s s ou gh tt o serve. ” C hapm a n v. H ous t on W e l f a r e R i ght s O r g. , 441 U . S . 600, 608, 99 S . C t . 1905, 60 L . E d. 2d 50 8 (19 79 ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). “ [N ] othi ng i s bett erse tt l ed than that s t a tut e s s houl d r e c e i ve a s e ns i bl e c ons truc t i on, s uc h a s w i l l e f f e c tua t e the39

l egi sl at i ve i nt ent i on , and, i f possi bl e, so as t o avo i d an u nj ustor absurd c onc l us i on. ” I n r e C hapm a n, 166 U . S . 661, 667, 17 S . C t . 677, 41 L . E d. 1154 ( 1 8 9 7 ) . T h e A p p e lla n t, b y r e n d e r in g “in c o m m e r c e ” n o th in g m o r e th a n e m p ty w o r d s , h a s s e v e r e d th a t p h r a s e f r o m its p u rp o s e , in c o n tr a v e n tio n o f th e b a s ic pri nci pl e thatthe w ords of a s t atut e a re w ri tt en t o fi l l a purpo se , no tt o fi l l a page. T he fe w exam pl es the A pp el l antoffe re d atoral ar gu m entof offe nses that w o u ld b e “in c o m m e r c e ” u n d e rh is in te rp r e ta tio n illu s tr a te th e a n o m a lo u s r e s u lts pr oduc e d by hi s r e a di ng. F ore xa m pl e , B a l l i nge ra r gue d tha ts e ndi ng a bom b t o a church by m ai l w ou l d p l ac e thatoffe nse i n com m er ce , si nce the m ai l i s a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of

c om m e r c e ; how e ve r , w e s e e no pr i nc i pl e d r e a s on w hy m a i l i ng a b o m b s h o u ld c o n s titu te d e s tru c tio n o f a c h u r c h in c o m m e r c e , w h e r e a s in te n tio n a lly usi ng a c ar-- another i nstrum ent al i ty of c om m er ce -- t o cross an i nt er st at e border a n d d e liv e rth e b o m b o n e s e lf w o u ld n o t. B a l l i nge rc ont e nds f

ur the rtha tus i ng a c e l l ul a rt e l e phone a s a m e c ha ni s m f or d e to n a tin g a b o m b m ig h t p la c e th e r e s u ltin g c h u r c h d e s tru c tio n in c o m m e r c e . T h is m a y w e ll b e tru e ; h o w e v e r , w e c a n d iv in e n o r e a s o n to c o n c lu d e th a t u s in g a c e ll p h o n e to d e to n a te th e b o m b d ir e c tly w o u ld b e e n o u g h , b u t u s in g a c e ll p h o n e to c a ll a c o - c o n s p ir a to rin a n o th e rs ta te f o rth e e x p r e s s p u rp o s e o f in s tru c tin g h im to det on at e the bo m b w ou l d n ot . T he A pp el l ant ’ s e ff ortt o d i st i ng ui sh the tw o cas esA f ur ther c on se qu e nc eof

B alling e r’ s re a ding“ in c omm e rc e ”out of thestatut eis that it 8 lar gely evi scer ate s the o ffen se o f attemptto defa ce, d ama ge, or d estroy rel igi ou s p rop erty . By its express languag e, § 247 covers not only completed acts of def

acement, damag e, or de str uc tio n o f p ropert

y, b ut also“ attempt s todo so .”§ 2 47 (a) ( “ Who e ver . . . int e nti on ally defaces, da

mag es, or de stroys any

relig ious real property, beca use of the relig ious character of that proper

ty , or attempts to do so . . . shall be punished . . . .”) . “To sustain a c onviction for the crime of attempt, the g overnment need only prove ( 1) that the de fenda nt had the spec ific intent to eng ag e in the criminal conduct for which he is cha rg ed and ( 2) that he took a substantial step toward c ommissi on of the off ense.”United States v. Murre ll, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004). A substantial step “must be morethan remote prepa ration,” a nd must be conduct “strong ly corroborative of

the firmness of

the def endant' s criminal intent.” United States v. Mandujano, 449 F .2d 370, 377 (5th Cir. 1974). Be causeBallinger

has ef fec tively remove d from § 247 the “ in commerc e” ba sis for jurisdic tio n, pre c iou s f

e w attempt

of fens e s o ther t

ha n th os etha

t “ a ff e c t c omm e rc e ”remain covered by

the statute. B allinger sug g ests that § 247 “only applies to situations where the pros e c uti on

demon strate s th at th eof

fens eof de stroyingor

damag ingre lig iou s re al prop e rt y ha s a substantial impact on interstate or fore ign c ommerce .” Appe llant’s En Ba nc B r. at 43. Such a

n 40 on the grou nd thatthe ac tual destruct i on of the church occurs i n com m er ce un der th e f o r m e rc ir c u m s ta n c e s b u t n o t u n d e rth e la tte ris s tr a in e d to th e b r e a k in g p o in t. B e c a us e thi s C our t“ ne e d nota nd s houl d notc ount e na nc e ” a n i nt e rpr e t a t i on of st atut ory l angu age that“ l ea ds t o ‘ absurd or fut i l e r es ul t s . . . “ pl ai nl y a tvari ance w ith th e p o lic y o f

th e le g is la tio n a s a w h o le ,” ’” E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity C om m ’ n v. C om m e r c i a l O f f i c e P r ods . C o. , 486 U . S . 107, 120, 108 S . C t . 1666, 100 L . E d. 2d 96 ( 1988) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A m . T ruc ki ng A s s ’ ns , I nc . , 310 U . S . 53 4, 54 3, 60 S . C t . 10 59 , 84 L . E d. 13 45 (194 0) (quo t i ng O za w a v. U ni t ed S t at es , 26 0 U . S . 17 8, 19 4, 43 S . C t . 65 , 67 L . E d. 19 9 (19 22 )) ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t a t e s v. T ur ke tt e , 452 U . S . 576, 580, 101 S . C t . 2524, 69 L . E d. 2d 246 ( 1981) ( “ [ A ] bs ur d r e s ul t s a r e t o be a voi de d. ” ) , w e r e j e c tthe A ppe l l a nt ’ s r e a di ng. 8eff

ect, heasser

ts, can bedemonstrated “ only by virtue of the c onnection betwe en the struc ture an d i nt er s t at e c o mm er ce . T h e o ff en s e c ann o th av e any

i mp ac to nco mm er ce o th er th anthro u gh thede stroye d b uil dingits e lf . . . . ”I d. at 45 (emph a sis in o ri g inal) . Sinc ethec omp le te d o ff e ns e of ar son can a ffe ct commerce only insofar a s the destruc tion of the church building has a n impact on commerce, it is virtually impossibl e to conjureup any instance in whic h a failed attempt to de stroy

a c hurch w ould h aveany

e ff e c t - - l e t alon ea

su bs tanti al e ff

e c t - - o n inters tate commerc e. B allinger’s brie f itself notes that “Sec tion 247 even covers attempted c hurch a rson, which would not even result in any damag e to a piec e of relig ious real property .” Appe llant’s Panel B r. at 41. A mere attempt, by definition, could not destroy church proper

ty ; thus, the Appellant’s inter

pretation larg ely

reads the attempt offense out of the statute. This substantial eviscera

tion of the attempt crime thwa rts Congress’ e ffor

t to reach with § 247 not only

the culminatingact of

actually destroying a

church, but also substantial preparatory steps dang erously

close to completingthe offense, even when they ultimately

miss their mark. The Appe llant’s sug g estion that “the ‘of fense ’ must be measured solely by looking at the impact on thebuildingor

a re lig iou s ic on ,”Appe lla

nt’ s En B ancB r. at 52 (emph a sis a dd e d) , iswh olly i n co n gru o u s wi thth i s ef

fo rt . Furth erm o re , ef

fe ct i v el y s tri p p i n g aw ay

th e att emp tl an gu age violates the basic a

nd much-repeate d principle that a statute must be construed so that no sentenc e , p hra se , o r w ord isrend e re d s up e rf luous , v oid , o r ins ignif

ic ant. Mo re ov e r, re a ding§ 2 47 ' s attempt languag e , a s th ee le mentsof attempt sug g e st i t sh ould be re ad, to cover those ca ses in which a “ substantial step” toward destroy ing a church happens “ in c omm e rc e ”on ly

magnif ie s th edif fi c ult y inh erent in App e lla

nt’ s interp retatio n. It w ould makelittlesens eto c on c ludethat when a n a rs onist take s a su bs tanti al prepa

ra tor y step in c omm e rc e , th eg ov e rnment c an p ro se c utehim fo r a n attempt to de stroy

a c hurch if hise ff or ts fail, but no t f

or thec omp le te d o ff

e ns eof c hurch d e str

uc tio n s ho uld

hisattempt

su c c e e d. Thus , for e x ample, travel in interstate c ommerceto the site of a targ et church, with the intent to burn that church, would constitute a substantial step in commerc e; thus, if the would-bearsonist then se ts a bo mb t hat malf un c tio ns and

fails to de ton ate , h epre suma bly c ould b epros e c ute d f

or his att e mp tt o d e s tro y th ec hurc h . H o w e v e r , i f th eb o mb d e t o n at e s a s i nt e n d e d an d a c tu al l y d e s tro ys the church, the a

rsonist could not be prosecuted bec ause, under the Appe llant’s interpretation, theultimatea c t of

de str uc tio n mu st o c c ur

in c omm e rc e-- trave l in

int e rs tatec omm e rc eto commit the offenseis not enough to cre ate jurisdiction over the completed of

fense . This result is so remote that the doc trine of leg al impossibil ity would likely

bar the attempt prosecutions any

way . “L eg al impossibil ity ,” wehave e xplained, “oc curs when the a c tio ns whic h th ede fendant p e rf or ms o r s e ts in mo tio n, e ven if fully c arrie d o ut a s h ede sire s, would not constitute a crime.”United States v. Oviedo, 525 F .2d 881, 883 (5th Cir. 1976). The traditional view is that leg al impossibil ity is a defense to the cha

rg e of attempt -- that is, if the completed of

fensewould not be a c rime, neither is a prosecution for attempt per mitted. See, e.g ., id.; see also Jeffrey

F. Ghent, Annotation, Impossibil ity of Consummation of Subst antive Crime as De fensein Criminal P rosecution for Conspiracy or Attempt to Commi t Crime, 37 A. L .R. 3d 37 5, §§ 2, 3 ( 20 04 ). Quitesim ply, e xcis ing§ 2 47 ' s “ in c omm e rc e ”languag eno t only 41e vis c e rate s h alf of thestatut e ’se xpre ss j urisdic tio nal ba sis , b ut alsosevere ly un dercutsits e xp l i c i tp ro s c rip t i o no f

“ att e mp t s ”t o d e s tro y re l i g i o u s p ro p e rty.

42 B. T he a nom a l ous r e s ul t s pr oduc e d by the A ppe l l a nt ’ s s tr a i ne d r e a di ng of § 247 a ls o p la in ly d e f

e a t th e s ta tu te ’s c le a rp u rp o s e . B a llin g e rs u g g e s ts th a t § 2 4 7 's le g is la tiv e h is to ry “is n o t r e le v a n t” b e c a u s e th e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e is u n a m b ig u o u s . A ppe l l a nt ’ s E n B a nc B r . a t35. W e a gr e e tha tthe s t a tut e i s una m bi guous , m a ki ng re sortt o l egi sl at i ve hi st ory unn ec es sa ry . Indeed, w e m ent i on the l egi sl at i ve hi st ory onl y i ns of

a ra s B a l l i nge rs ugge s t s tha tthe r e m a y be s om e a m bi gui ty i n the j ur i s di c t i ona l s c ope of

§ 247, a nd i n r e s pons e t o B a l l i nge r ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe p u rp o s e o f

th e 1 9 9 6 a m e n d m e n t to § 2 4 7 w a s to c o n tr a c t th e s ta tu te ’s ju r is d ic tio n . S e e i d. a t30- 32; 35; 41. S e c t i on 247 w a s a m e nde d i n 1996 i n r e s pons e t o a na t i ona l e pi de m i c of burni ngs of

pr e dom i na nt l y A f

r i c a n- A m e r i c a n c hur c he s , pa r t i c ul a r l y i n the s o u th e a s te rn U n ite d S ta te s . H .R . R e p . N o . 1 0 4 - 6 2 1 , a t 2 - 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , r e p r in te d in 1996 U . S . C . C . A . N . 1082, 1083- 85; 142 C ong. R e c . S 7908- 4, S 7908 ( 1996) ( j oi nt s t a t e m e ntof

S e ns . F a i r c l oth a nd K e nne dy a nd R e ps . H y de a nd C ony e r s ) . T he s t a tut e ’ s or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i ona l l a ngua ge , C ongr e s s f ound, w a s t oo c om pl e x a nd t oo r e s tr i c t i ve t o f

a c i l i t a t e pr os e c ut i ons of the s e of f e ns e s . S e e i d. I n f

a c t , onl y one p r o s e c u t i o n h a d b e e n b r o u g h tu n d e r§ 2 4 7 s i n c e i t s e n a c tme n ti n 1 9 8 8 . Se e H . R.43

R e p. N o. 104- 621, a t4, r e pr i nt e d i n 1996 U . S . C . C . A . N . a t1095. A s w e ha ve no t ed, the pre-1996 vers i on of the st atut e a l l ow ed prosecut i on for i nt ent i on al de f a c e m e nt , da m a ge , orde s truc t i on of r e l i gi ous pr ope r ty w he n: “ ( 1) i n c om m i tt i ng th e o ffen se, th e d efen d an ttrav el s i n i n t erst at e o r fo rei g n co m m erce, or u ses a f a c i l i ty ori ns trum e nt a l i ty of i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn c om m e r c e i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e ; a nd ( 2) . . . the l os s r e s ul t i ng f r om the de f

a c e m e nt , da m a ge , or d e s tru c tio n is m o r e th a n $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .” P u b . L . N o . 1 0 0 - 3 4 6 , § 1 , 1 0 2 S ta t. 6 4 4 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T h e 1 9 9 6 am en d m en tt o th e st atu t e rem o v ed b o th th e $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 m o n et ary l o ss r e qui r e m e nta nd the r e qui r e m e ntof i nt e r s t a t e tr a ve l orus e of a f a c i l i ty or i ns trum e nt a l i ty of

c om m e r c e , e xt e ndi ng j ur i s di c t i on t o a l l c a s e s i n w hi c h “ the o f f e n s e is in o ra f

f e c ts in te r s ta te o rf

o r e ig n c o m m e r c e .” § 2 4 7 ( b ) . B a l l i nge rs a y s tha tthe r e m ova l of the l a ngua ge s pe c i f

i c a l l y pr ohi bi t i ng the de s truc t i on of

r e l i gi ous pr ope r ty w he n, i n c om m i tt i ng the of f e ns e , the de f

e nda nt tr a ve l e d i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e m e a ns tha ttr a ve l i n c om m e r c e i s no l onge re nough t o e s t abl i s h j ur i s di c t i on. A ppe l l a nt ’ s E n B a nc B r . a t35. H ow e ve r , the 1996 am en d m en trem o v ed i n t erst at e trav el o n l y as a j u ri sd i ct i o n al req u i si t e, n o tas a ju r is d ic tio n a l g r o u n d . T he pl a i n a nd l i t e r a l l y e xpr e s s e d purpos e of thi s r e vi s i on w a s t o e xt e nd the reach o f th e st atu t e. A s th e H o u se R ep o rtacco m p an yi n g th e b i l l ex p l ai n s,44

C o n g ress en v i si o n ed th at“ i tw o u l d n o l o n g er b e n ecessary to establi sh as a j uri sdi ct i on al prer equi si t e thatthe defendanthi m se l f m ov ed i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce or used a f

ac i l i ty i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . Inst ea d i tw ou l d b e e no ug h t o sho w that hi s c onduc tha d a n i m pa c ton i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” H . R . R e p. N o. 104- 621, a t10 (199 6), re pri nt ed i n 1 99 6 U . S . C . C . A . N . at10 91 . T he st atut e w as there fore a m e nde d i n or de rt o “ br oa de n[ ] the j ur i s di c t i ona l s c ope of the s t a tut e by appl y i ng cr im in al p en alti es if th e o ff en se ‘i s in o r a ff

ec ts in ters tate o r f

o re ig n co m m er ce .’ T hi s f orm ul at i on grant s F eder al j uri sdi ct i on , and thu s e xt ends the A tt orney G e ne r a l ’ s abi l i ty t o pr os e c ut e c a s e s , a s t o a ny c onduc tw hi c h f a l l s w i thi n the i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e c l a us e of the C ons t i tut i on. ” I d. a t1087- 88; s e e a l s o 142 C o n g . R ec. atS 7 9 0 9 (j o i n tst at em en to f S en s. F ai rcl o th an d K en n ed y an d R ep s. H y d e a n d C o n y e r s ) ( “T h e b ill r e p la c e s s u b s e c tio n ( b ) w ith a n e w in te r s ta te c om m e r c e r e qui r e m e nt , w hi c h br oa de ns the s c ope of the s t a tut e by appl y i ng cr im in al p en alti es if th e ‘o ff en se is in o r a ff

ec ts in ters tate o r f

o re ig n co m m er ce .’ ” ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ) . M oreover, C on gres s s peci fi ca l l y i nt ended t he am ended § 24 7 t o rea ch offe nses l i ke B al l i ng er ’ s. T he H ou se and S enat e r eport s both st at e that“ [u] nd er thi s new form ul at i on of the i nt er st at e c om m er ce re qu i re m ent , the C om m i tt ee i nt e nds tha tw he r e i n c om m i tt i ng, pl a nni ng, orpr e pa r i ng t o c om m i tthe of f e ns e , the45

de f e nda nte i the rtr a ve l s i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e , orus e s the m a i l ora ny f a c i l i ty of i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn c om m e r c e , the s t a tut e w i l l be s a t i s f i e d. ” H . R . R e p. N o. 10 4-62 1, at7 (19 96 ), re pri nt ed i n 1 99 6 U . S . C . C . A . N . at10 88 ; 14 2 C on g. R ec . a tS 7909 (

j oi nts t a t e m e ntof

S e ns . F a i r c l oth a nd K e nne dy a nd R e ps . H y de a nd C o n y e r s ) . C o n g r e s s c o u ld n o t h a v e m a d e c le a r e rits in te n tio n to e x e r c is e its f u ll c o m m e r c e p o w e r : th e H o u s e R e p o r t s p e c if ic a lly s ta te d th a t § 2 4 7 's “in o ra f f e c ts i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn c om m e r c e ” l a ngua ge “ gr a nt s F e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on . . . a s t o a ny cond uctw hi ch fa l l s w i thi n the i nt er st at e c om m er ce cl ause of the C on st i tut i on . ” H .R . R e p . N o . 1 0 4 - 6 2 1 , a t 7 , r e p r in te d in 1 9 9 6 U .S .C .C .A .N . a t 1 0 8 8 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h e S e n a te R e p o r t r e ite r a te d th a t “it is th e in te n t o f th e C o n g r e s s to exer ci se the ful l es tre ac h o f the F eder al com m er ce po w er . ” 142 C on g. R ec . at S 7909 ( j oi nts t a t e m e ntof

S e ns . F a i r c l oth a nd K e nne dy a nd R e ps . H y de a nd C on ye rs ). P l ai nl y, the st atut e i s des i gn ed t o cov eral l proscr i bed con du ctthat C o n g r e s s m a y c o n s titu tio n a lly r e a c h . T h is is n o th in g m o r e th a n th e s im p le pr i nc i pl e tha tthe gr e a t e ri nc l ude s the l e s s e r . A ppl y i ng thi s ge ne r a l rul e t o the s ta tu te a t h a n d le a d s in e s c ap ab ly to th e c o n c lu s io n th a t B a llin g e rh a s im p r o p e r ly re ad the st atut e a s e xcl ud i ng hi s c on du ct : C on gres s i nv ok ed i t s f ul l com m er ce po w erw i th the “ i n o r a ff ec t s c om m er ce ” l angu age; C on gres s has the po w er , un der46

th e C o m m e r c e C la u s e , to r e a c h c o n d u c t lik e B a llin g e r ’s ; th e r e f o r e , th e s ta tu te co v ers B al l i n g er’ s o ffen ses. C. A fi nal , and t o o ur thi nk i ng si gn i fi ca ntprob l em w i th B al l i ng er ’ s r ea di ng of § 2 4 7 i s th ati ti s w h o l l y i n co n si st en tw i th th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s -- an d th i s C i rcu i t ’ s -

- i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f

th e l i n g u i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a rf e d e r a l f e l o n - i n - p o s s e s s i o n s t a tu t e . As w e ha ve not e d, i n S c a rbor ough v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , the S upr e m e C our ti nt e rpr e t e d the m e a ni ng of

18 U . S . C . § 1202( a ) , w hi c h puni s he s c e r t a i n i ndi vi dua l s w ho

“ r e c e i ve [ ] , pos s e s s [ ] , ortr a ns por t [ ] i n c om m e r c e ora f f e c t i ng c om m e r c e ” a ny f i r e a r m . O bs e r vi ng tha tthi s pr ovi s i on c oul d be r e a d t o r e qui r e e i the rtha tthe a c tof p o s s e s s io n its e lf

o c c u rin c o m m e r c e o rs im p ly th a t th e f ir e a r m h a v e m o v e d in com m er ce pri or t o an i ntra st at e a ctof po ss es si on , the C ou rtdeem ed the st atut ory l a ngua ge “ a m bi guous a tbe s t . ” S c a rbor ough, 431 U . S . a t570. S i gni f i c a nt l y , the C o u r t n o te d th a t, a lth o u g h C o n g r e s s d id n o t c h o o s e la n g u a g e th a t e x p lic itly in d ic a te d th a t th e o f

f e n s e o f p o s s e s s io n n e e d n o t h a v e “a p r e s e n t n e x u s w ith c om m e r c e , ” ne i the rdi d the l a ngua ge i ndi c a t e tha ta c ont e m por a ne ous c onne c t i on w ith c o m m e r c e w a s r e q u ir e d . I d . T hus , the S upr e m e C our tdi d tw o thi ngs . F i r s t , i ts tr e s s e d the ne e d t o gi ve m ea ni ng t o b oth the “ i n com m er ce ” a nd the “ af fe ct i ng com m er ce ” l angu age. S ee47

i d. a t571. R e vi e w i ng the c ongr e s s i ona l f i ndi ngs a c c om pa ny i ng the l e gi s l a t i on, the C our tc onc l ude d tha t“ i tdoe s s e e m appa r e nttha ti n i m pl e m e nt i ng the s e f i ndi ngs by p ro h i b i t i n g b o th p o ssessi o n s i n co m m erce an d th o se affecti n g co m m erce, C o n g ress m u s t h a v e m e a n t m o r e th a n to o u tla w s im p ly th o s e p o s s e s s io n s th a t o c c u rin c om m e r c e ori n i nt e r s t a t e f a c i l i t i e s . ” I d. a t572. S e c o n d , th e C o u r t lo o k e d to th e le g is la tiv e h is to ry , c o n c lu d in g th a t it

“ f ur the rs uppor t s the vi e w tha tC ongr e s s s oughtt o rul e br oa dl y t o ke e p guns outof the ha nds of

” f e l ons a nd othe r s . I d. T he l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory c ont a i ne d “ no i nd i ca t i on thatC on gres s i nt ended t o requi re any m ore than the m i ni m al nexu s that th e f ir e a r m h a [ s ] b e e n , a t s o m e tim e , in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e .” I d . a t 5 7 5 . M or e ove r , the C our tnot e d tha ti nt e rpr e t i ng the s t a tut e a s r e qui r i ng the of f e ns e of po ss es si on i t se l f t o o cc ur i n com m er ce “ fa i l s c om pl et el y t o ful fi l l the cong re ss i on al p u rp o s e ” a n d “v ir tu a lly e lim in a te s th e o n e o f f e n s e o n w h ic h C o n g r e s s f o c u s e d in e n a c t i n g th e l a w. ” I d . a t5 7 7 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e C o u r tr e j e c t e d th a tv i e w. I n i nt e rpr e t i ng § 247, w e ne e d l ook no f a r the rtha n the m e thodol ogy e m pl oy e d by the S upr e m e C our ti n S c a rbor ough t o r e a c h the c onc l us i on tha t§ 247 c a n n o t b e in te rp r e te d a s r e q u ir in g th e u ltim a te a c t o f d e s tru c tio n to o c c u rin com m er ce . B oth the w el l -s ett l ed m ea ni ng of the st atut e’ s “ i n o r a ff ec t s” com m er ce l angu age a nd the un am bi gu ou sl y e xp re ss ed l egi sl at i ve i nt entl ea d u s t o the vi ew48

tha ttr a ve l i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e j us tpr i ort o a nd f orthe purpos e of

de s tr oy i ng a church pl ac es the offens e w i thi n the re ac h o f § 24 7. T o avo i d -- a s the C ou rt s oughtt o do i n S c a rbor ough - - s tr i ppi ng s t a tut ory l a ngua ge of m e a ni ng a nd thw a r t i ng l e gi s l a t i ve purpos e , thi s C our tm us tr e a d § 247 t o c ove rof f e ns e s l i ke B al l i n g er’ s. B a l l i nge rc onc e de s , a s he m us t , tha tthe w or ds of the f e l on- i n- pos s e s s i on s t a tut e a r e s tr i ki ngl y s i m i l a rt o the l a ngua ge e m pl oy e d i n § 247. N e ve r the l e s s , he arg u es th atth e fel o n -i n -p o ssessi o n st atu t e sh o u l d b e i n t erp ret ed d i fferen t l y b ecau se i ti s pa r tof

a n ove r a r c hi ng c ongr e s s i ona l s c he m e of gun r e gul a t i on. T hi s a r gum e nt h a r d ly b e g in s to e x p la in w h y th e la n g u a g e o f a c h u r c h a r s o n s ta tu te is e n title d to l e s s de f e r e nc e tha n the l a ngua ge of a gun s t a tut e . M or e ove r , B a l l i nge rm i s s e s the p o in t th a t th e s im ila r ity b e tw e e n th e s ta tu te s lie s n o t in th e s u b je c t o f th e ir r e g u la tio n b u t in th e lin g u is tic to o ls u s e d to in v o k e f e d e r a l c o m m e r c e ju r is d ic tio n . T e xtua l l y , the l a ngua ge of the tw o s t a tut e s i s s o s i m i l a rtha tthe m e thod a nd r e a s oni ng the S upr e m e C our tappl i e d i n i nt e rpr e t i ng the l a ngua ge of the f e l on- i npo ss es si on l aw offe r a n eas y a nd prac t i ca l approach t o the l i ng ui st i ca l l y par al l el a r s o n s ta tu te . Indeed, si nce S ca rborou gh w as deci ded, w e have atl ea stsi x t i m es r e a f f i r m e d a nd r e appl i e d i t s hol di ng. W e i ni t i a l l y a dopt e d the r e a s oni ng of49

S ca rborou gh i n U ni t ed S t at es v. S t andri dg e, 81 0 F . 2d 10 34 (11th C i r. 19 87 ). In 1996, w e r e c ons i de r e d tha tde c i s i on i n l i ghtof L ope z . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c A l l i s t e r , 77 F . 3d 387 ( 11th C i r . 1996) , w e a ddr e s s e d the m e a ni ng of T i t l e 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) , th e s u c c e s s o rs ta tu te to § 1 2 0 2 ( a ) , w h ic h w a s a t is s u e in S ca rborou gh . S ec t i on 92 2(g) m akes i tun l aw ful for f el on s a nd ce rt ai n o ther i ndi vi dua l s “ t o s hi p ortr a ns por ti n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e , orpos s e s s i n or a f f e c tin g c o m m e r c e , a n y f ir e a r m o ra m m u n itio n .” § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e dec l ar ed thatthe fa ctthat“ the fi re arm po ss es se d b y M cA l l i st erprevi ou sl y had tr a v e lle d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” s a tis f ie d th e r e q u ir e m e n t th a t it b e p o s s e s s e d in c o m m e r c e . M c A llis te r , 7 7 F .3 d a t 3 9 0 . I n s p ite o f

th e s ta tu te ’s lite r a l la n g u a g e th a t th e o f f e n d e rm u s t “p o s s e s s in com m er ce ” the fi re arm , i n U ni t ed S t at es v. R ey no l ds, 21 5 F . 3d 12 10 (11th C i r. 2000) , w e a ga i n r e i t e r a t e d tha t§ 922( g) ’ s j ur i s di c t i ona l r e qui r e m e ntm e a ns tha tthe g o v e rn m e n t m u s t p r o v e o n ly “th a t th e f ir e a r m p o s s e s s e d tr a v e le d in in te r s ta te com m er ce , ” - - notthatthe po ss es si on i t se l f have occurr ed i n com m er ce . Id. at 1 2 1 5 . A c c o r d in g ly , R e y n o ld s f o u n d th e f

a c t th a t th e g u n “w a s m a n u f a c tu r e d in C onne c t i c uta nd the n tr a ve l e d a c r os s s t a t e l i ne s t o F l or i da , w he r e R e y nol ds po ss es se d i t ” w as “ suff

i ci entt o sho w the re qu i re d n exus t o i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” I d.50

I n 2001, thi s C our tonc e m or e r e vi s i t e d the j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e ntof the f e lo n - in - p o s s e s s io n s ta tu te , th is tim e in lig h t o f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in M o rr is o n . I n U n ite d S ta te s v . D u p r e e , 2 5 8 F .3 d 1 2 5 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , w e h e ld th at“ M o rri so n d o es n o tch an g e th e h o l d i n g i n M cA l l i st er an d th at§ 9 2 2 (g ) i s a c o n s titu tio n a l e x e r c is e o f C o n g r e s s ’s c o m m e r c e p o w e r .” I d . a t 1 2 5 9 . W e de t e r m i ne d tha t“ by br a ndi s hi ng a f i r e a r m tha tw a s m a nuf

a c tur e d i n C a l i f

orni a a nd foun d i n h i s c ar , [the defendant ’ s] ac t i on s s at i sf y [ the j uri sdi ct i on al re qu i re m ent ] . ” I d. a t1260. A pa ne l of

the C our te c hoe d the hol di ng onc e m or e i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S cott , 26 3 F . 3d 12 70 (11th C i r. 20 01 ), no t i ng thatno thi ng i n M orri son o r i n Jon es v . U n ite d S ta te s ( w h ic h h e ld th a t th e f e d e r a l a r s o n s ta tu te , 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 ( i) , d id notr e a c h a pr i va t e r e s i de nc e ) , a l t e r e d the hol di ng i n M c A l l i s t e r . S e e S c ott , 263 F . 3d at12 74 . T hu s, the fa ctthatthe “ pi st ol thatS cottpo ss es se d w as m anufactured i n C al i forni a a nd had m ov ed i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce t o G eorgi a w here S cottw as c a u g h t w ith th e w e ap o n ” w a s “s u f f ic ie n t to d e m o n s tr a te th e r e q u ir e d n e x u s to i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” I d. ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C l a y , 355 F . 3d 1281, 1287 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( ho l di ng that§ 9 22 (g)’ s “ po ss es s i n o r a ff ec t i ng com m er ce ” l a ngua ge c ove r e d a n of

f e ns e i n w hi c h the onl y e vi de nc e of a ne xus be tw e e n the w e ap o n a n d c o m m e r c e w a s a n in s c r ip tio n o n th e b a rr e l r e a d in g , “C o lt M an u fa ctu rin g C o m p an y, H ar tfo rd , C t. ,” sin ce th e ju ry co u ld “ratio n ally in fe r[ ]”51

fr om the i nscr i pt i on , coup l ed w i th the fa ctthatthe gu n w as se i ze d i n G eorgi a, that the w e apon ha d “ tr a ve l e d i n ora tl e a s ta f f e c t e d i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ” ) . T he “p o s s e s s in o ra f

f e c tin g c o m m e r c e ” la n g u a g e o f § 9 2 2 ( g ) - - ju s t lik e th e “o f f e n s e is i n ora f f e c t s c om m e r c e ” l a ngua ge f ound i n § 247 - - “ i s a j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e ntof th a t c r im in a l o f

f e n s e .” C la y , 3 5 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 6 . S i m pl y put , the A pp el l ant ’ s c ra m ped con struct i on of the j uri sdi ct i on al la n g u a g e e m p lo y e d b y C o n g r e s s in § 2 4 7 is w h o lly a t o d d s w ith th e ap p r o a c h th is C i rc ui thas r epea t edl y t aken t o the nearl y i dent i ca l l angu age f ou nd i n § 92 2(g). In s hor t , w e r e a d § 247 a s r e qui r i ng tha tthe of f e nde rut i l i z e the c ha nne l s or i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e i n c a rry i ng outhi s c r i m e - - nottha tthe ul t i m at e a ctus re us of destroyi ng the church i t se l f s om ehow occur i n com m er ce . I V. T he na tur e a nd hi s t ory of the c om m e r c e pow e r , the pl a i n l a ngua ge of § 247, a nd the l ong- a c c e pt e d m e a ni ng of the t e r m “ i n c om m e r c e , ” a l ong w i th the ac com panyi ng l egi sl at i ve hi st ory a nd the i nt erpret at i on of the l i ng ui st i ca l l y s i m i l ar f e lo n - in - p o s s e s s io n s ta tu te , a ll y ie ld th e c o n c lu s io n th a t C o n g r e s s d id , in f a c t, p r o s c r i b e B a l l i n g e r ’ s c o n d u c t , a n d th a ti th a d th e p o we rt o d o s o . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we affi rm B al l i n g er’ s co n v i ct i o n s. AF F I R ME D.52

E D M O N D S O N , C h ie f

J u d g e , c o n c u r s in th e r e s u lt.53

T JO F L A T , C i rcu i tJu d g e, d i ssen t i n g , i n w h i ch B IR C H an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es, j oi n: T h e c o u r t h o ld s th a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 7 , w h ic h p r o v id e s th a t “[ w ]h o e v e r. . . i nt e nt i ona l l y de f

a c e s , da m a ge s , orde s tr oy s a ny r e l i gi ous r e a l pr ope r ty , be c a us e of the r e l i gi ous c ha r a c t e rof tha tpr ope r ty , ora tt e m pt s t o do s o . . . s ha l l be puni s he d” if “th e o f f e n s e is in o ra f

f e c ts in te r s ta te o rf

o r e ig n c o m m e r c e ,” r e a c h e s a p u r e ly l ocal church ars on so l on g as the ar soni stcr osse d st at e l i nes pri or t o the offens e. In o th e rw o r d s , th e e a r lie rtr a v e l p la c e s th e o f f e n s e its e lf

“in . . . in te r s ta te . . . c o m m e r c e .” B e c a u s e I b e lie v e th a t a c h u r c h a r s o n is n o t “in c o m m e r c e ” s im p ly be c a us e the of

f e nde rtr a ve l e d f

r om a nothe rs t a t e s om e t i m e pr i ort o the of f e ns e a nd, m or e ove r , tha ts o i nt e rpr e t e d the s t a tut e e xc e e ds C ongr e s s ’ s a uthor i ty unde rthe C om m e r c e C l a us e , I r e s pe c t f ul l y di s s e nt . I a gr e e w i th m uc h of w ha ti s s a i d i n the di ss ent s J ud ges H i l l and B i rc h h ave f i l ed and w ri t e s epar at el y onl y t o em ph as i ze a few p o i n t s. I W h e n C o n g r e s s s e e k s to r e ly o n in te r s ta te tr a v e l a s a b a s is f o re x e r c is in g its autho ri ty und erthe C om m er ce C l ause , i tkn ow s how t o d o so. A s the panel m a jo r ity n o te d , “[ t]h e r e a r e n u m e r o u s f e d e r a l s ta tu te s w h ic h d o , e x p lic itly , f o rb id m ov em enti n i nt er st at e c om m er ce i n o rdert o com m i ta tra di t i on al com m on -l aw c r i m e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a l l i nge r , 312 F . 3d 1264, 1273 n. 8 ( 11th C i r . 2002)54

( c o lle c tin g s ta tu te s ) . A n d m o r e im p o r ta n t f o rp r e s e n t p u rp o s e s , p r io rto its a m e ndm e nti n 1996, § 247 i t s e l f r e a c he d c a s e s i n w hi c h, “ i n c om m i tt i ng the o f f e n s e , th e d e f

e n d a n t tr a v e ls in in te r s ta te o rf o r e ig n c o m m e r c e , o ru s e s a f a c ility ori ns trum e nt a l i ty of

i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn c om m e r c e i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c o m m e r c e .” I n 1 9 9 6 , th is p r o v is io n w a s d e le te d a n d r e p la c e d w ith th e c u rr e n t § 2 4 7 ( b ) , w h ic h e x te n d s o n ly to c a s e s in w h ic h “th e o f f e n s e is in o ra f

f e c ts in te r s ta te or fore i gn com m er ce . ” T h e c o u r t, h o w e v e r , n o w r e a d s th e o ld in te r s ta te tr a v e l p r o v is io n b a c k in to th e s ta tu te , a s if

th e 1 9 9 6 a m e n d m e n t h a d n e v e ro c c u rr e d , d e s p ite th e f a c t th a t it is u n ab le to c ite a s in g le c a s e th a t h o ld s th a t a n o f f e n s e is “in c o m m e r c e ” s im p ly because the offender c ross ed st at e l i nes a tsom e poi ntpri or t o i t s c om m i ss i on . In re ac hi ng thi s c on cl usi on , the courtm akes m uch o f the narrow ness of the cont ra ry i nt erpret at i on urged b y the appel l antand rel i es on the pri nci pl e that , w henever p o s s ib le , a s ta tu te s h o u ld b e r e a d in a w a y th a t g iv e s e f f e c t to a ll o f

its w o r d s . In d eed , th e co u rtfau l t s th e ap p el l an tfo r fai l i n g t o i d en t i fy sat i sfact o ri l y th o se o f f e n s e s o th e rth a n h is o w n th a t m ig h t b e c o n s id e r e d “in c o m m e r c e .” A n te , a t 2 2 . I a m un ce rt ai n w hat , i f a ny, church ars on m i gh tbe “ i n com m er ce . ” I ti s, ho w ever , cl ear t o m e th ata ch u rch arso n i s n o t“ i n co m m erce” sim p l y b ecau se th e arso n i st ca m e f rom another s t at e a tsom e poi ntpri or t o the offens e. T he rul e thatst atut esThe c ourt itself quotes ca ses statingthat ever y word should be g iven ef

fec t “if possible” 1 or “wherever possible”or that the SupremeCourt was “reluctant to tre at statutory terms as surplusag e.” Ante, at 37. 55 s houl d be r e a d s o a s nott o r e nde rw or ds i ns i gni f i c a nti s a ge ne r a l pr i nc i pl e of st atut ory i nt erpret at i on , no tan i nfl exi bl e rul e. T here fore , w e nee d n otdo vi ol ence 1 t o the s t a tut ory l a ngua ge s i m pl y t o s a t i s f y our s e l ve s tha tw e ha ve gi ve n a l l the w ords of § 2 47 a f

un ct i on . T he courtsa ys that“ C on gres s does notw ri t e s t atut es f orthe w or ds

— i tw r i t e s the m f orthe m e a ni ng. ” A nt e , a t38. T he c our t , i n turn, h a s ap p lie d § 2 4 7 ’s ( p e r c e iv e d ) m e a n in g r a th e rth a n its w o r d s . II I a gr e e f ul l y w i th the c our ttha tthe “ c ongr e s s i ona l pow e rt o r e gul a t e the c h a n n e ls a n d in s tru m e n ta litie s o f c o m m e r c e in c lu d e s th e p o w e rto p r o h ib it th e ir us e f orha r m f ul purpos e s , e ve n i f

the t a r ge t e d ha r m oc c ur s out s i de the f l ow of com m er ce and i s purel y l ocal i n n ature. ” A nt e, at12 . T hatcong re ss i on al po w er , h o w e v e r , is n o t im p lic a te d b y th is c a s e . R a th e r , th e c o u r t h a s in te rp r e te d § 2 4 7 to re ac h a cr i m e thati s purel y l ocal i n n ature s i m pl y bec ause the defendantcr osse d s ta te lin e s p r io rto its c o m m is s io n . T h u s , w h a t th e c o u r t in te rp r e ts th e s ta tu te to r e gul a t e i s the pur e l y l oc a l i ntr a s t a t e c r i m e , notthe us e of the c ha nne l s a nd i nstrum ent al i t i es of com m er ce for aharm ful pu rpose. In i t s opi ni on , the courtci t es a num ber of f eder al cr i m i nal st atut es thatIn note 7 of the opinion, the c ourt contends that 18 U.S.C. § 2118(a) is like § 247. 2 Se c tio n 2 11 8( a) p ro vide s: Whoever take s or attempts to take from the person or presence of

another by forc e or vio lenc eor

by intimi datio n a

ny materi al or

c omp ound

c ontainingany

qu antity of a c ontrolled substancebelong ing to or in the care, custody, control, or possession of a person re g istered with the Dr ugEnforc ement Administration under se ction 302 of the Controlled Substances A ct (21 U.S.C. 822) shall . . . be fined under this titl e or imprisoned not morethan twenty year s, or both, if (1) the replacement cost of the material or compound to the re g istrant was not less than $500, (2) the person who eng ag ed in such takingor attempted suc h taking trave led in interstate or

fore ign c ommerceor used a ny fac ility in interstate or fore ign c ommerceto fac ilitate such takingor attempt, or ( 3) another per son was kil le d o r s uf

fere d s ignif

ic ant b odily

inj ur y a s a re sult o f s uc h ta

kingor attempt . Th is s tatut eis v alid , h ow e ver, no t be c a us eof theint e rs tatetrave l prov isi on , b ut rather b e c a us eit “for m[ s] an essential part of a larg er regulation of ec onomic activity , namely the manufacture , dis tributio n a

nd po sse ssi on

of c ontroll e d s ub sta

nc e s, in which th eov e rall re gulator y sc heme could be undercut unless the intra state ac tivity were re gulated.” United States v. Workman, 990 F. Supp. 473, 475 (S.D. W. Va. 1998) (upholding § 2118(b), which criminaliz es enteringor attempting to enter the premises or property of a person re g istered with the DEA with the intent to steal a c ontrolled substance ). More over, thestatute itself indicates that the inter state trave l provision is not relied upon to establish jurisdiction under the CommerceClause, for even where no interstate tra

vel is involved the statute re ache s case s in which the controlled substanc e taken was wor th at least $500 or a

nother person was killed or seriously injured in the cour se of the crime. Simi larly, the other two statutes discusse d in note 7 of the c ourt’s opinion, 21 U.S.C. § 331(k), whic h criminalizes the adulteration or misbrandingof any articlesubject to FD A regulation “while such a

rticle is held for

sale . . . a fter shipment in interstatecommerc e,” a nd the old fe lon -in- po sse ssi on

statut ea dd

re sse d in Sc arb orough v . Unit e d St ate s, 43 1 U .S. 56 3, 97 S. Ct . 1 9 6 3 , 5 2 L . E d . 2 d

5 8 2 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , wh ichmad eit a c rim ef o r a f e lo nto“p o s s e s s [] o r

tran s p o rt[ ] in commerc e or a ffe ctingcommerc e, . . . any firea rm,” a re w ithin C ongress’s c ommercepower be c a us ethey arepa rt of a larg e r re gulatio n o f e c onomi c a c tiv ity, n ame ly, th ere gulatio n o f d rug s, etc., in one c ase, a

nd the re gulation of guns, etc., in the other . See United States v. Sullivan, 332 U. S. 6 89 , 6 8 S. Ct. 33 1, 92 L . E d. 29 7 ( 19 48 ) (up ho ldingtheF DAprov isi on a s a valid e xerc ise of “theconstitutional power of Congress under the c ommerceclauseto regulate the brandingof artic le s th at ha

vec omp le te d a

n inters tatesh ipm e nt a

nd arebe inghe ld f

or futuresale s in

pure ly 56 c r i mi n a l i z e i n t e r s t a t e tr a v e l f o ri l l i c i tp u rp o s e s , a s w e l l a s s e v e r a l e a r l y Su p r e me C o u rtcases u p h o l d i n g su ch st atu t es. A n t e, at1 9 -2 0 & n . 6 . T h o se st atu t es, how e ve r , a r e unl i ke § 247 be c a us e the y do i n f a c tr e gul a t e the c ha nne l s a nd i n s tru me n t a l i t i e s o f

c o mme r c e . U n d e rs u c h s t a tu t e s , th e o f f e n d e rc o mmi t s a c r i me 2local or intra state commerce”(citing , inter alia, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82,

87 L . E d. 12 2 ( 19 42 )) ); Sc arb orough, 43 1 U .S. at 57 6, 97 S. Ct . at 19 69 (1 97 7) (re a so ningthat a narrower interpretation of “in commerce or aff ectingcommerc e” w ould “createserious looph ole s in

thec on gre ssi on al pl an” ). Thus , th ec ourt ’sre lia nc eon Sc arb orough a

nd prog e ny is misplaced, a s Congress’s authority to regulate the possession of guns is part of its larg er authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and possession of guns—an ec onomic activity —and the statute re fer s not only to possession “in commerc e,” but also to possession “affe cting commerc e.” 57 as so o n as h e b eg i n s trav el i n i n t erst at e co m m erce fo r th e h arm fu l p u rp o se b ecau se tha ti s pr e c i s e l y w ha ti s m a de c r i m i na l

— the m ove m e nti n c om m e r c e f orthe ha r m f ul purpos e . I n thos e c a s e s , the us e of the c ha nne l s of

c om m e r c e a nd the of f e ns e i t s e l f

a r e i ne xtr i c abl y i nt e r tw i ne d, a nd C ongr e s s ha s pr ope r l y r e gul a t e d the c h a n n e ls a n d in s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . H e r e , in c o n tr a s t, th e r e is no s ugge s t i on tha t§ 247 c r i m i na l i z e s m e r e tr a ve l w i th the unl a w f ul purpos e or r e gul a t e s , f

ore xa m pl e , the i nt e r s t a t e tr a ns por t a t i on of pe r s ons f

orthe purpos e of c o m m ittin g c h u r c h a r s o n . R a th e r , th e s ta tu te u n a m b ig u o u s ly r e g u la te s th e p u r e ly l oc a l de f a c e m e ntorde s truc t i on of r e l i gi ous r e a l pr ope r ty i t s e l f . T hi s di s t i nc t i on doe s not , a s the c our tc ont e nds , “ c onf l a t e [ ] the c ons t i tut i ona l que s t i on w i th the st atut ory i nt erpret at i on qu es t i on . ” A nt e, at20 . Indeed, the S up re m e C ou rt a c know l e dge d thi s ve ry di f f e r e nc e i n C a m i ne tt i v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 242 U . S . 470, 37 S . C t . 19 2, 61 L . E d. 44 2 (19 17 ): Itm ay b e co n ced ed , fo r th e p u rp o se o f th e arg u m en t , th atC o n g ress h a s n o p o w e rto p u n is h o n e w h o tr a v e ls in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e m e r e ly because he has the i nt ent i on of com m i tt i ng an i l l egal or i m m oral ac tat the concl usi on of the j ou rney . B utthi s a cti s notconcerned w i th such58

in s ta n c e s . I t s e e k s to r e a c h a n d p u n is h th e m o v e m e n t in in te r s ta te c om m e r c e of

w om e n a nd gi r l s w i th a vi e w t o the a c c om pl i s hm e ntof the unl a w f

ul purpos e s pr ohi bi t e d. I d. a t491, 37 S . C t . a t197. T hi s s t a t e m e nt , w hi c h onl y a s s um e s the poi ntf orthe sa k e o f a rg u m en t, d o es n o t, o f c o u rs e, co n clu siv ely e stab li sh th at th e c o u rt’s i nt erpret at i on of § 2 47 i s bey on d C on gres s’ s c om m er ce po w er . B uti tdo es de m ons tr a t e tha tthe r e i s a di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n thi s c a s e a nd the c a s e s on w hi c h the c our tr e l i e s a nd, f

ur the r , tha tthe c ons t i tut i ona l i s s ue c a nnotbe r e s ol ve d s i m pl y by w ay of ci t at i on s t o tho se ca se s. A nd on ce i ti s s ee n thatthi s c as e i s notcontrol l ed b y th o s e p r e c e d e n ts , it a ls o b e c o m e s c le a rth a t th e c o u r t’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f § 2 4 7 is unc ons t i tut i ona l unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ope z , 514 U . S . 549, 115 S . C t . 1624, 131 L . E d. 2d 62 6 (19 95 ). B ec ause the court ’ s r ea di ng of § 2 47 re gu l at es a purel y l ocal c r im e r a th e rth a n th e u s e o f th e c h a n n e ls o rin s tru m e n ta litie s o f c o m m e r c e , it c a n n o t b e s u s ta in e d a s a n e x e r c is e o f C o n g r e s s ’s “L o p e z 1 ” o r“L o p e z 2 ” p o w e r s . N or, as the panel m aj ori ty i n thi s c as e has al re ady dem on stra t ed, ca n i tbe sust ai ned unde r“ L ope z 3. ” B a l l i nge r , 312 F . 3d a t1268- 76. II I M y f in a l q u a rr e l w ith th e m a jo r ity o p in io n is th a t its u ltim a te h o ld in g is obs c ur e . A s I ha ve e xpl a i ne d, I do notunde r s t a nd the c our t ’ s de c i s i on t o hi nge on a det erm i nat i on thatB al l i ng erac tual l y c ross ed st at e l i nes w i th the i nt entt o b urn59

churches; ra ther, I t ake the courtt o h ol d that§ 2 47 re ac hes B al l i ng er ’ s c on du ct s i m pl y be c a us e he c r os s e d s t a t e l i ne s a ts om e poi ntnott oo l ong be f or e c om m i tt i ng the a r s on. I f

thi s i s trul y the hol di ng of thi s c a s e , the n the obvi ous f ol l ow - up qu es t i on i s how cl osel y c on nect ed the bo rdercr ossi ng and the ar son m ustbe for § 24 7 t o app l y. B al l i ng er , of course , began b urni ng churches i n G eorgi a s oo n aft er a rr iv in g th e r e , s o th is is , f o rth e c o u r t, a n e a s y c a s e . B u t w o u ld § 2 4 7 s till ap p ly if h e h a d w a ite d a w e e k ? W h a t ab o u t a m o n th ? O rw h a t if B a llin g e rh a d a c tu a lly m ove d t o G e or gi a , e s t abl i s he d a pe r m a ne ntr e s i de nc e , a nd the n s e ve r a l m onths or even ye ar s l at ercom m i tt ed the ar son? I thi nk i ti s l i kel y thatthe courtw ou l d d ra w a lin e s o m e w h e r e a lo n g th is c o n tin u u m , b u t I a m n o t a t a ll s u r e w h e r e it w o u ld b e . N orc a n I i m a gi ne f

r om w he nc e s uc h a rul e w oul d c om e , othe rtha n m a y be our ow n g oo d j ud gm ent . S i nce there i s no b as i s i n the t extof the st atut e i t se l f f or such a rul e , i t

— l i ke the c our t ’ s i nt e r s t a t e tr a ve l j ur i s di c t i ona l hook— w oul d ha ve t o be c r e a t e d outof

w hol e c l oth. I f

thi s i s w ha tthe c our tm e a ns t o hol d, i tw oul d be bett ert o say so cl ea rl y a nd t o g o ahead and w ri t e the rul e i nt o the st atut e now so as t o a tl e a s tgi ve the di s tr i c tc our t s a nd the G ove rnm e nts om e gui da nc e goi ng fo rw ard . In st ead , th e co u rtv ag u el y h o l d s th at§ 2 4 7 ap p l i es w h en ev er th e arso n i st cr osse s s t at e l i nes a tsom e poi ntpri or t o the offens e. H ow cl ose i n t i m e the bo rder cr ossi ng and the ar son m ustbe i s aqu es t i on thatw e app ar ent l y l ea ve for a no ther60

day. T hu s, al tho ug h the courti s w i l l i ng t o h ol d that§ 2 47 cont ai ns a j uri sdi ct i on al ho ok that , on i t s f

ac e, i tqu i t e pl ai nl y does not , i ti s unw i l l i ng t o say exac t l y w hat th a t ju r is d ic tio n a l h o o kis . Iti s possi bl e, ho w ever , thatI have m i sr ea d the court ’ s opi ni on . A tthe ou t se t of the opi ni on, f

ore xa m pl e , the c our tdoe s s t a t e tha tB a l l i nge r“ c r os s [ e d] the bo rder s of f

ou r s t at es for the pu rpose of burni ng churches. ” A nt e, at2. A nd l at er o n , th e c o u r t s ta te s th a t B a llin g e rm a d e “a t le a s t s ix s e p a r a te b o r d e rc r o s s in g s , a ll f orthe s pe c i f

i c purpos e of

s pr e a di ng the e vi l of

c hur c h burni ng thr ough f our di f f e r e nts t a t e s , ” a nd, quot i ng the pa ne l di s s e nt , tha t“ the i m m e di a c y w i th w hi c h he s e toutt o burn c hur c he s onc e he a rr i ve d a nd the abs e nc e of a ny i ndi c a t i on tha the ha d othe rbus i ne s s i n G e or gi a de m ons tr a t e tha the us e d the c ha nne l s f orthe purpos e of

c om m i tt i ng a r s on. ” A nt e , a t17- 18 ( quot i ng B a l l i nge r , 312 F . 3d a t1278 ( H a ll, J ., d is s e n tin g ) ) . D oes thi s m ea n thatthe courtdo es , i n fac t , ho l d that§ 2 47 appl i es on l y w hen th e d e f e n d a n t a c tu a lly tr a v e le d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e w ith th e in te n t to c o m m it c h u r c h a r s o n — i . e . , th a tme r e p r o o f o f tr a v e l a n d a s u b s e q u e n ta r s o n i s i n s u f f i c i e n t ? I f s o , th e n I th in k th a t th e c o u r t h a s tw o p r o b le m s . F ir s t, th e r e is a g a in n o th in g in the t extof the st atut e t o sup po rtsuch a r ea di ng . O f c ou rs e, a l ac k o f t extual su p p o rtw i l l p l ag u e an y i n t erp ret at i o n o f § 2 4 7 th atreach es B al l i n g er’ s co n d u ct , so61

I w ill m o v e o n to th e s e c o n d p r o b le m w ith th is p o te n tia l h o ld in g : n e ith e rth e f a c ts char ged i n the i nd i ctm entno r tho se t o w hi ch B al l i ng erst i pu l at ed as partof hi s pl ea a g r e e m e n t s u p p o r t a f

in d in g th a t h e a c tu a lly c r o s s e d s ta te lin e s w ith th e in te n t to bu rn churches. T he i nd i ctm entm er el y tra cks the st atut ory l angu age, char gi ng that the a r s on w a s c om m i tt e d “ unde rc i r c um s t a nc e s s uc h tha t[ i t ] w a s i n a nd a f f e c t i ng i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” M oreover, B al l i ng erst i pu l at ed thathe and h i s gi rl fr i end l ef t In d ian a “p ar tl y o u t o f c o n ce rn ab o u t a ca ll b y a n F B I a g en t t o B alli n g er ’s p ar en t’ s h o m e in I n d ia n a .” H e a ls o s tip u la te d th a t h e d id n o t p u r c h a s e th e g a s o lin e u s e d in th e G e o r g ia f

ir e s u n til h e w a s a c tu a lly in G e o r g ia . N o w h e r e d o e s h e s p e c if ic a lly adm i tthathe cr osse d st at e l i nes w i th the i nt entt o b urn chu rc hes or tra vel ed for that s p e c if ic p u rp o s e . T h u s , if

th e c o u r t h a s in f

a c t r e w r itte n § 2 4 7 to m a k e in te r s ta te tr a ve l w i th the i nt e ntt o c om m i tc hur c h a r s on a n e l e m e ntof the of f e ns e , the n the conv i ct i on shou l d b e vac at ed because there i s no evi dence i n the re cord of such an i nt ent . S ee , e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. G am bo a, 16 6 F . 3d 13 27 , 13 31 n. 4 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( “A c o u r t c a n n o t a c c e p t a g u ilty p le a u n le s s it is s a tis f ie d th a t th e c o n d u c t to w hi c h the de f

e nda nta dm i t s c ons t i tut e s the of f e ns e c ha r ge d. ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W hi t e, 25 8 F . 3d 37 4, 38 0 (5th C i r. 20 01 ) ( “ no tw i thst andi ng an un cond i t i on al pl ea of gu i l ty, w e w i l l re vers e on d i re ctappeal w here the fa ctual basi s f or the pl eaasOn appe al, B allinger does not spec ifically argue that his conviction should be vac ated 3 on this ground. This is understandable. I n the par t of its opinion hol ding that the charg ed o ff en s es “o cc urr edi ni nt er s t at e c o mm er ce , ” th e d i s tri ctco urts t at edth e f o l l o wi n g: [D]e fendant t

ra ve le d through Indiana , Ke ntuc ky, a nd Tenn e sse eon

hiswa y to Ge org ia and then b a c k through Ke ntuc ky there a ft e r. De fendant util ize d inters tate highw ays, g a s st atio ns , h ote ls, and su pp lie s a nd madeva ri ou s p urc ha se s in i nt er s t at e c o mm er ce t o p rep ar e f o r an d ac co mp l i s ha mu l t i -s t at e ars o ncamp ai gn th atu l t i m at el y

t arget edel ev enchurc h es i nfo ur d i ff er ents t at es . Al th o u gh defendant’s crimes in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennesseearenot presently before this court, the stipulated fac tual basis illustrate s that these tra nsactionally-re lated offenses constitute part of a larg er c ampaign which may be fairly characterized as an “of fense. . . in or aff

ect[ing] interstate or

fore ign c ommerce .” 18 U.S.C. § 247(b). This cour

t is satisfied that on these grounds alone, de fenda nt’s § 247 prosecution is constitutionally permissible. The district cour

t did not rest its determination that the offenses occurre d “in commerce”on any deter mination that Balling er actually entered Ge org ia with the intent of burning churches. Rather, thedis tric t c ourt

he ld t hat th ebo rde r cro ssingby its e lf plac e d th esu

bs e qu e nt o ff

e ns e“ in c omm e rc e ”wi thout re g ard to intent. I f t

hema jority ’sint e rp retatio n o f § 24 7 doe s, in f a c t, re quirea sh ow ingof

su c h a n intent—and , ag ain, my

imp re ssi on

is that it do e s n ot—

then it differ s signific antly

from the “ in commerc e” the ory of the c onviction the district court adopte d. Cf. App.’s En B anc B rief, a t 29 (“In its P etition for En B anc Consideration, the g overnment contende d that §247 is satisfied when a defendant trave ls across statelines at some unnamed point prior to committi ngthe offense.”) , 34 (“Theg overnment never answers the question of . . . how fa r in time this li ne crossing would c ontinue [t o satisfy the re quirement that the of fensebe ‘in commerc e’].”). It is, therefore, of no moment that B allinger has not spec ifically argued the po int on a pp e al; i f w eareto cre atea new the or

y of thec onvic tio n o n a

pp e al, w emus t at le a st ascertain whe ther the f

actual basis for the guilty plea in fact supports that theory . 62 show n o f r ec ord fai l s t o est abl i sh an el em entof the offens e of c on vi ct i on ”) . 3 T o re it er ate, I d o n o t th in k th is sh o rtco m in g re ally m atters to th e c o u rt’s hol di ng, a s I unde r s t a nd the hol di ng t o be tha tthe c r i m e i s the c hur c h a r s on a nd thatthe pri or bo rdercr ossi ng i s asuff i ci entj uri sdi ct i on al ho ok w hether i nt entw as pres entdu ri ng thati nt er st at e tra vel or no t . Indeed, the very fa ctthatthe courthas re nd er ed thi s poi nta non i ss ue un ders core s the di ff er ence betw ee n federa l st atut es th atcri m i n al i ze i n t erst at e trav el fo r an i l l i ci tp u rp o se an d th e st atu t e w e ad d ress63

here . If § 2 47 ac tual l y t ar get ed i nt er st at e tra vel w i th the i nt entt o com m i tchurch ar son, i tw ou l d p robabl y be c on st i tut i on al , and w e w ou l d h ave t o d ec i de w hether th e s tip u la te d f

a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth e p le a is s u f

f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h in te n t a n d th u s to s us t a i n the c onvi c t i on. B uts uc h a r e a di ng of the s t a tut e w oul d l a c k e ve n the f a i nt e s tba s i s i n i t s t e xt , a nd I do notthi nk tha ti ti s the i nt e rpr e t a t i on tha tthe m aj o ri ty ad o p t s. I m en t i o n th e p o ssi b i l i ty o n l y b ecau se th e co u rt ’ s o p i n i o n i s l ess tha n c l e a ron thi s poi nt , a nd i f I a m w r ong a nd thi s i s the c our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the st atut e, then the courtshou l d atl ea stexpl ai n i t s bas i s f or concl ud i ng that B a l l i nge ra c tua l l y c r os s e d s t a t e l i ne s w i th the i nt e ntt o c om m i tc hur c h a r s on. M y c on fusi on as t o the ho l di ng of thi s c as e c an be sum m ar i ze d i n a fe w sh o rt q u es ti o n s th at th e c o u rt se em s to leav e u n an sw er ed : F irst, u n d erth e c o u rt’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f

§ 2 4 7 , is it n e c e s s a ry to p r o v e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t tr a v e le d in i nt er st at e c om m er ce w i th the i nt entt o com m i tchurch ars on ? I thi nk the court w ou l d answ er , “ no . ” I f thati s the ca se , then h ow cl ose i n t i m e m ustthe bo rder cr ossi ng and the ar son b e f or § 2 47 t o app l y? (A nd , as a m att erof st atut ory i nt e rpr e t a t i on, how a r e w e t o de c i de w he r e t o dr a w the l i ne ? ) I f , how e ve r , the c our tw oul d a ns w e rm y f i r s tque s t i on i n the a f

f i r m a t i ve , w ha tba s i s i s the r e f or concl ud i ng thatB al l i ng ercr osse d st at e l i nes w i th the i nt entt o com m i tchurch a r s on? B e c a us e a l l of

the s e poi nt s r e m a i n unc l e a r , the c our t ’ s opi ni on r e m a i ns64

u n sat i sfact o ry ev en i f I assu m e th ati treach es th e co rrectresu l t . O n ce th ese a m bi gui t i e s a r e c l e a r e d a w a y , w e a r e a ga i n l e f tw i th pur e l y i ntr a s t a t e of f e ns e s a nd a f e de r a l pr os e c ut i on of

the m tha tha ngs s ol e l y on the of f e nde r ’ s e a r l i e rc r os s i ng fr om on e s t at e i nt o ano ther. A s s uch, the court ’ s di sc ussi on of B al l i ng er ’ s hi gh w ay tr a ve l s , ga s ol i ne pur c ha s e s , a nd hot e l s t a y s , a nd i t s c i t a t i ons t o c a s e s s us t a i ni ng c o n v ic tio n s w h e r e th e f e d e r a l c r im e w a s th e in te r s ta te tr a v e l its e lf , a r e s im p ly i rr el evantand serve on l y t o o bscure the re al i ss ue and t o cre at e a n i l l usi on of a c o n n e c tio n to in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e th a t s im p ly d o e s n o t e x is t in f a c t. IV B e c a u s e § 2 4 7 c a n n o t p r o p e r ly b e in te rp r e te d to r e a c h B a llin g e r ’s c o n d u c t, a n d b e c a u s e it w o u ld b e u n c o n s titu tio n a l e v e n if it c o u ld , I r e s p e c tf

u lly d is s e n t.As Judg eHi ll n ote s, § 2 47 c ann ot b ec on str ue d topenalizeint e rs tatetrave l to 1 acc omplish an arson of relig ious real property beca use the proscription of such trave l was e xcis e d b y

Congre ss in 1 99 6 when it amend e d th estatut e . B y de le tingthere ferenc eto inters tate trave l and insertingthe pre sent languag e, Congress c ast § 247’s re ach “ over a wider, a nd more pure ly int ra state ”c ate g or

y of c omm on law crime s b y

outla wingthea c t of

c hu rch- burningits e lf if ac complished after the a rsonist happene d to cross State lines. See United States v. Mor rison, 529 U.S. 598, 613, 120 S. C t. 1740, 1752 (2000). 65 B IR C H C i rcu i tJu d g e, d i ssen t i n g , i n w h i ch H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g e, j o i n s: A s t o the m a

j or i ty opi ni on, I r e s pe c t f ul l y di s s e nt . I f

ul l y c onc uri n J udge H ill’s d is s e n t a n d a d d m y f o llo w in g th o u g h ts a s w e ll. A ti t s c or e , thi s c a s e de vol ve s i nt o a s i m pl e , y e tnua nc e d, que s t i on: doe s the C om m e r c e C l a us e gr a ntthe U ni t e d S t a t e s C ongr e s s the pow e rt o pr os c r i be the c o m m o n la w c r im e o f

a r s o n b y a tta c h in g th e ju r is d ic tio n a l q u a lif ie r“in o ra f

f e c ts i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e ” t o th e a n t i - c h u r c h - b u rn i n g s t a tu t e , 1 8 U. S . C . § 2 4 7 ? As J u d g e H ill’s th o r o u g h a n d w e ll- r e a s o n e d d is s e n t p o in ts o u t, th e m a jo r ity ’s n o b le e f f o r t to u p h o ld th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f § 2 4 7 th r o u g h s ta tu to ry c o n s tru c tio n f a ils to c o n s i d e rw h a tth e s t a tu t e a c tu a l l y p e n a l i z e s , n a me l y , a l o c a l c o mmo n l a w c r i me ag ain st p ro p er ty. W h il e I fu ll y c o n cu r w ith h is o p in io n an d an alys is, Ju d g e H il l’ s 1 a r gum e nt s c a n be m a gni f i e d e ve n f

ur the rw he n vi e w e d thr ough the l e ns of fe dera l i sm , a c on ce ptw hi ch re t ai ns vi t al i ty a nd i m po rt ance i n o ur m od ern c o n s titu tio n a l s c h e m e , s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . L o p e z , 5 1 4 U .S . 5 4 9 , 5 7 5 , 1 1 5 S . C t. 1624, 1637 ( 1995) . R e c ogni z i ng tha t§ 247 r e gul a t e s by f e de r a l s t a tut e a n a r e a of cr i m i nal l aw tra di t i on al l y r es erved t o the S t at es , I w ri t e s epar at el y t o em ph as i ze66

tha tthe pr i nc i pl e s of

f e de r a l i s m i m pl i c a t e d i n thi s c a s e s houl d ha ve l e d the m aj ori ty t o fi nd that18 U . S . C . § 2 47 re pres ent s a n i ncursi on i nt o S t at e pol i ce p o w e r s n o t s a n c tio n e d b y th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . I . F e de r a l i s m a nd I t s R e l a t i on t o C om m e r c e C l a us e I nt e rpr e t a t i on I ti s a xi om a t i c tha tthe “ C ons t i tut i on c r e a t e s a F e de r a l G ove rnm e ntof en u m erat ed p o w ers. ” L o p ez, 5 1 4 U . S . at5 5 2 , 1 1 5 S . C t . at1 6 2 6 . D esp i t e th e ri se and fal l of vari ou s c on st i tut i on al do ctri nes, thi s bedrock pri nci pl e has re ce i ved e ndur i ng, unf

a i l i ng a dhe r e nc e . S e e M c C ul l oc h v. M a ry l a nd, 17 U . S . 316, 405 ( 1819) ( not i ng tha ti ti s “ uni ve r s a l l y a dm i tt e d” tha tthe f e de r a l gove rnm e nti s “ one of e num e r a t e d pow e r s ” ) ; H a m m e rv. D a ge nha r t , 247 U . S . 251, 275, 38 S . C t . 529, 532 ( 1918) ( s a m e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M orr i s on, 529 U . S . 598, 607, 120 S . C t . 1740, 1 7 4 8 (2 0 0 0 ). In acco rd an ce w i th th i s co n stru ct , “ [e] v ery l aw en act ed b y C o n g ress m ustbe base d o n o ne or m ore of i t s pow er s e nu m er at ed i n the C on st i tut i on . ” M orr i s on, 529 U . S . a t607, 120 S . C t . a t1748. C onc om i t a ntw i th thi s r e c ogni t i on tha tf e de r a l l e gi s l a t i ve pow e ri s l i m i t e d by the C ons t i tut i on, how e ve r , i s the p r in c ip le th a t le g is la tiv e p o w e rn o t g r a n te d to C o n g r e s s w a s r e s e r v e d to th e S ta te s . S e e U .S . C ON ST . a m e n d . X ; U n ite d S ta te s v . D a rb y , 3 1 2 U .S . 1 0 0 , 1 2 4 , 6 1 S . C t. 4 5 1 , 4 6 2 ( 1 9 4 1 ) ( n o tin g th a t th e T e n th A m e n d m e n t “s ta te s b u t a tru is m th a t a ll is r e t a i ne d w hi c h ha s notbe e n s urr e nde r e d” ) . T he F r a m e r s thus e s t abl i s he d a67

const i tut i on al structure i n w hi ch “ [t ] he po w er s del egat ed . . . t o the fe dera l g o v e rn m e n t a r e f

e w a n d d e f

in e d [ ;] [ t]h o s e w h ic h a r e to r e m a in in th e S ta te gove rnm e nt s a r e num e r ous a nd in d e f in ite .” T HE F ED ERAL I ST N o. 45 (J am es M a d is o n ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e C o n s titu tio n e n s u r e s “a s y s te m o f d u a l s o v e r e ig n ty b e tw e e n th e St a t e s a n d th e Fe d e r a l G o v e rn me n t . ” G r e g o ry v . A s h c r o f t , 5 0 1 U . S. 4 5 2 , 4 5 7 , 1 1 1 S . C t. 2 3 9 5 , 2 3 9 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . T h is c o m p le x c o n s titu tio n a l d y n a m ic is ty p ic a lly s u m m a r iz e d b y th e s in g le p h r a s e “f e d e r a lis m .” R eal i zi n g th atth e co n st i tu t i o n al d esi g n m an d at ed ad h eren ce t o fed eral i st p r in c ip le s , f

e d e r a lis m h a s in f

o r m e d ju r is p ru d e n tia l a n a ly s is in a n u m b e ro f a r e a s . Fo re x a mp l e , f

e d e r a l i s m a n d r e s p e c tf

o rSt a t e s o v e r e i g n ty h a s l e d th e Su p r e me C ou rtt o caut i on agai nstgrant i ng fe dera l i nj un ct i on s t o enj oi n p endi ng S t at e c ou rt p r o c e e d in g s . S e e Y o u n g e rv . H a rr is , 4 0 1 U .S . 3 7 , 4 5 , 9 1 S . C t. 7 4 6 , 7 5 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . L i ke w i s e , a c onc e rn f

orf e de r a l i s tpr i nc i pl e s ha s l e d f e de r a l c our t s t o r e f

r a i n f r om r e ve r s i ng a S t a t e c our tde c i s i on i f tha tde c i s i on r e s t s on a de qua t e S t a t e gr ounds i n d e p e n d e n to f

f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n s . Se e , e . g . , M u r d o c k v . Ci ty o f M e mp h i s , 8 7 U . S. 59 0, 63 5 (18 75 ). S i m i l ar l y, re spec tfor the l egi sl at i ve com pet ence of S t at es has d ic ta te d th a t f

e d e r a l c o u r ts s ittin g in d iv e r s ity ap p ly S ta te ru le s o f d e c is io n , s e e E r ie R . R . v. T om pki ns , 304 U . S . 64, 78, 58 S . C t . 817, 822 ( 1938) ( not i ng tha t“ the C ons t i tut i on of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s . . . r e c ogni z e s a nd pr e s e r ve s the a ut onom y a nd68

i nde pe nde nc e of

the S t a t e s ” ) , a nd S t a t e c hoi c e of l a w rul e s , s e e K l a xon C o. v. S te n to rE le c . M f

g . C o ., 3 1 3 U .S . 4 8 7 , 4 9 6 , 6 1 S . C t. 1 0 2 0 , 1 0 2 1 ( 1 9 4 1 ) . Iti s ag ai n stth i s b ack d ro p o f fed eral i sm th atth e C o m m erce C l au se i s m o st ap p r o p r ia te ly in te rp r e te d w h e n a f e d e r a l s ta tu te p u rp o r ts to r e g u la te a n a r e a in w h i ch S t at e l aw trad i t i o n al l y o ccu p i ed th e fi el d . T h e C o n st i tu t i o n g ran t s C o n g ress the po w ert o “ re gu l at e C om m er ce w i th forei gn N at i on s, and am on g the se vera l S ta te s . . . .” U .S . C ON ST . a r t. I , § 8 . T h is “e x p r e s s g r a n t o f p o w e rto r e g u la te com m er ce am on g the S t at es has a l w ay s bee n u nd er st oo d as l i m i t ed by i t s t erm s. ” U n i t e d St a t e s v . D e w i tt , 7 6 U . S. 4 1 , 4 4 ( 1 8 6 9 ) ; s e e Lo p e z , 5 1 4 U . S. a t5 5 3 , 1 1 5 S. C t . a t1627 ( c i t i ng G i bbons v. O gde n, 22 U . S . 1 ( 1824) f orthe pr opos i t i on tha tthe

“ l i m i t a t i ons on the c om m e r c e pow e ra r e i nhe r e nti n the ve ry l a ngua ge of the C o m m e r c e C la u s e ” ) . T h u s , th e C o n s titu tio n r e le g a te s C o n g r e s s io n a l a c tiv ity to ar ea s of in te rs ta te com m er ce . T he F ra m er s c ho se t o l i m i tthe exerc i se of fe dera l po w eri n thi s m anner prec i se l y t o p re se rve afe dera l i stsy st em . S ee N L R B v. Jones & L a ughl i n S t e e l C orp. , 301 U . S . 1, 37, 57 S . C t . 615, 624 ( 1937) ( “ [ T ] he s c ope of thi s [ C om m er ce C l ause ] po w erm ustbe consi dere d i n the l i gh tof ou r dual sy st em of gove rnm e nt. . . . ) . B y r e s tr i c t i ng c ongr e s s i ona l a c t i vi ty t o the r e gul a t i on of in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , th e C o n s titu tio n p r e s e r v e s th e “‘d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n w h a t is n a tio n a l a n d w h a t is lo c a l’” le s t a “‘c o m p le te ly c e n tr a liz e d g o v e rn m e n t’” w h o llyRe a dingthec a se s in whic h f e deral re gulatio ns of

int ra statea c tiv ity

havebe e n u

ph e ld 2 under theCommerce Clause , this li mitation could be ref ined even further

to requirethat the federal re gulation prom otethe national ec onomy , rather than simply aff ect it. See United States v. Wrightwood Dairy

Co., 315 U.S. 110, 120, 62 S . Ct. 523, 526 (1942) (notingthat the Sherman Antitrust Act could be a

pplied to intrastate ac tivity beca use anti-monopolistic conditions promoted interstatecommerc e); He art of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 258, 85 S. Ct . 3 48 , 3 58 (1 96 4) (f indingre gulatio n o f m ote ls w a s p e rmitt e d unde r C omm e rc eCla us e beca use it promoted interstate c ommerceby encourag ing unrestricted inter state trave l); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 154-55, 91 S. Ct. 1357, 1362-63 (1971) (upholdingfederal 69 oc c upy the l e gi s l a t i ve f

i e l d. L ope z , 514 U . S . a t557, 115 S . C t . a t1629 ( quot i ng J o n e s & L a u g h lin S te e l C o rp ., 3 0 1 U .S . a t 3 7 , 5 7 S . C t. a t 6 2 4 ) . A dm i tt edl y, ho w ever , som e f eder al re gu l at i on i n are as tra di t i on al l y r es erved to th e S ta te s is r e q u ir e d . R e a liz in g th a t c e r ta in a c ts w h ic h a r e w h o lly in tr a s ta te in ch aract er m ay affect i n t erst at e co m m erce, and th ereb y fru strat e C o n g ress’ s ex p ress po w ert o regul at e i nt er st at e c om m er ce , the S up re m e C ou rthas perm i tt ed fe dera l r e g u la tio n o f

s u c h a c tiv ity w h e r e it s u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c t s i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e i n the a g g r eg a te . S e e W ic k a r d v . F ilb u rn , 3 1 7 U .S . 1 1 1 , 1 2 4 - 2 5 , 6 3 S . C t. 8 2 , 8 9 ( 1 9 4 2 ) . T he W i c ka r d de c i s i on, how e ve r , ha s be e n s ubs e que nt l y de c l a r e d t o be “ pe rhaps the m ostfa r r ea chi ng exam pl e of C om m er ce C l ause autho ri ty over i ntra st at e a ct i vi ty. ” L ope z , 514 U . S . a t560, 115 S . C t . a t1630. M or e ove r , s ubs e que ntde c i s i ons rel yi n g o n W i ck ard h av e d el i m i t ed i t s h o l d i n g i n tw o i m p o rt an tan d o b v i o u s w ays b ecau se o f fed eral i stco n cern s. F i rst , fed eral reg u l at i o n o f i n trast at e act i v i ty m u st reg u l at e act i v i ty th ati s e c o n o m ic in n a tu r e . M o rr is o n , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 6 1 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t. a t 1 7 5 0 . T h is lim ita tio n r e c o g n iz e s th a t if th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t is a llo w e d to 2c rimin alizatio n o f l oa n- sh arkingbe c a

us esu c h p rac tic e s h inde re d le g itimatenatio nal e c on omi c activity ). 70 e n c r o a c h u p o n n o n e c o n o m i c a r e a s o f S t a t e c o n c e rn , f

e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n wi l l c r o wd ou tst at e l egi sl at i on i n con tra vent i on t o the C on st i tut i on ’ s f eder al i stdynam i c. S ee L ope z , 514 U . S . a t595, 115 S . C t . a t1647 ( T hom a s , J . , c onc urr i ng) ( not i ng tha tthe po w ert o regul at e “ i ntra st at e com m er ce ” w h ic h s u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c ts in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e d o e s n o t s a n c tio n f e d e r a l r e g u la tio n o f

in tr a s ta te “a c tiv itie s ” u n r e la te d to com m er ce ). S ec on d, fe dera l enac tm ent s r ea chi ng i ntra st at e c om m er ce m usthave a s uf f i c i e ntne xus t o i nt e r s t a t e a c t i vi ty . I d. a t562- 63; s e e M a ry l a nd v. W i r t z , 392 U .S . 1 8 3 , 1 9 6 , 8 8 S . C t. 2 0 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ( “T h e s u b je c t o f f e d e r a l p o w e ris s till

‘ com m er ce , ’ and n otal l com m er ce bu tcom m er ce . . . am on g the se vera l S t at es . ”) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h e C o u r t r e le g a te d W ic k a r d ’s r e a c h in th is m a n n e rb e c a u s e , if the f e de r a l gove rnm e ntw e r e a l l ow e d “ t o t a ke ove rthe r e gul a t i on of e nt i r e a r e a s of tr a di t i ona l s t a t e c onc e rn, . . . the bounda r i e s be tw e e n the s phe r e s of f e de r a l a nd s t a t e a uthor i ty w oul d bl ur. . . . ” L ope z , 514 U . S . a t577, 115 S . C t . a t1638 (K en n ed y, J., co n cu rr in g ). A cc o rd in g ly, alo n g th e s p ec tru m o f C o n g re ss ’s co m m erce p o w er, W i ck ard an d i t s p ro g en y, t em p ered b y fed eral i stl i m i t at i o n s, r e pr e s e ntthe f

a r the s tf e de r a l r e gul a t i on c a n r e a c h i nt o i ntr a s t a t e a c t i vi ty . T he m a jo r ity ig n o r e s th is lim ita tio n . I I . T he C om m e r c e P ow e ra nd 18 U . S . C . § 247Importantly , it should be noted that Congress is not barre d from enactingcriminal laws 3 purs ua nt to it s e xpre ss p ow e rs . Se eL op e z, 5 14 U. S. at 59 7 n .6 , 1 15 S. Ct . at 16 48 n. 6 ( Th oma s, J ., concur ring ). Utiliz ing theNec essar y and Proper

Clause, seeU.S. C O N ST . art . I , § 8, Congre ss has prohibited movement

through interstate c hannels by criminal sanc tion. See, e.g ., 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (criminaliz ing travel to commit murder f or hire) . When Congre ss criminalizes localized conduct traditionally

regulated the States, however, f ederalism concerns are trig g ere d and fe deral courts should invalidate the statute if it unduly obliterates the f

ederal-State balancemandated by our constitutional design. See L opez, 514 U.S. at 552, 115 S. C t. at 1626. 71 A ga i ns tthi s ba c kgr ound of f e de r a l i s m a nd the bounda r i e s i te s t abl i s he s f or c o n g r e s s io n a l a c tiv ity in a r e a s ty p ic a lly r e le g a te d to S ta te la w , th e c o r e is s u e s in thi s c a s e c om e i nt o f

oc us . A s J udge H i l l ’ s di s s e ntnot e s , 18 U . S . C . § 247 r e pr e s e nt s a f

e de r a l s t a tut e w hi c h purpor t s t o pr os c r i be the c om m on l a w c r i m e of a r s o n w h e n d ir e c te d a t r e lig io u s r e a l p r o p e r ty b y a p e rp e tr a to rw h o c r o s s e d S ta te lin e s to c o m m it th e c r im e . V ie w in g th e c o m m e r c e p o w e rin af e d e r a lis t c o n te x t, it becom es m ani fe stthatthe po w ert o p rosc ri be church bu rni ng i n thi s m anner l i es b e y o n d C o n g r e s s ’s g r a s p . F i rs t , thi s r egul at i on i m perm i ss i bl y i ntrudes i nt o are as tra di t i on al l y r es erved t o the S t a t e s . “ S t a t e s pos s e s s pr i m a ry a uthor i ty f orde f i ni ng a nd e nf

or c i ng the c r i m i na l l a w . ” B r e c htv. A br a ha m s on, 507 U . S . 619, 635, 113 S . C t . 1710, 1720

3 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . T h a t th e le g is la tiv e p r o s c r ip tio n o f c o m m o n la w c r im e s s h o u ld b e le f t to the S t at es w as apparentt o the F ra m er s bef ore the C on st i tut i on w as ra t i fi ed. S ee T HE F ED ERAL I ST , N o. 17 ( A l e xa nde rH a m i l t on) ( not i ng tha tthe “ a dm i ni s tr a t i on of cr i m i nal and ci vi l j ust i ce ” w as re se rved t o the S t at es ). T hi s c on ce ptw as confi rm edStatec rimin al st atut e s w ould h aveoutla we d B alling e r’ s c on du c t in e a c h o f t heState s in 4 which he c ommitt ed church ar son. See I ND . C ODE ANN . § 35 -4 3- 1- 1; K Y . REV . S TAT . ANN . § 72 b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, s e e C o h e n s v . V ir g in ia , 1 9 U .S . 2 6 4 , 4 2 8 ( 1 8 2 1 ) ( “I t is c le a r , th a t C o n g r e s s c a n n o t p u n is h f e lo n ie s g e n e r a lly .” ) , a n d it r e ta in s v ita lity t oda y , s e e M orr i s on, 529 U . S . a t618, 120 S . C t . a t1754 ( “ [ W ] e c a n thi nk of no bett erexam pl e of the po l i ce po w er , w hi ch the F ou nd er s deni ed the N at i on al G ove rnm e nta nd r e pos e d i n the S t a t e s , tha n the s uppr e s s i on of vi ol e ntc r i m e a nd v in d ic a tio n o f

its v ic tim s .” ) . I n a d d itio n to e n c r o a c h in g in to S ta te c r im in a l la w , § 2 4 7 a ls o r e la te s to r e a l p r o p e r ty , a n o th e ra r e a tr a d itio n a lly r e s e r v e d to th e S ta te s . S e e V i l l a ge of

E uc l i d v. A m be rR e a l ty C o. , 272 U . S . 365, 387- 88, 47 S . C t . 114, 11 8 (19 26 ). B y purpo rt i ng t o o ut l aw the ac tof bu rni ng a c hu rc h, C on gres s has f e de r a l i z e d a c om m on l a w c r i m e a ga i ns tpr ope r ty . S e e C a l i f orni a v. M i nj a r e s , 443 U . S . 91 6, 92 7, 10 0 S . C t . 9, 15 (197 9) (R ehnq ui st , J. , di ss ent i ng ) ( no t i ng that

“ c r i m e s a ga i ns tpe r s on a nd pr ope r ty— the tr a di t i ona l c om m on- l a w c r i m e s — ha ve la r g e ly r e m a in e d th e p r e s e r v e o f th e S ta te .” ) . T ru ly , c h u r c h a r s o n is c o n te m p tib le behavi or, and B al l i ng er ’ s c on du ctm er i t s har sh cond em nat i on . H i s a ct s, ho w ever , de va s t a t e d the w or s hi p s pa c e s of l oc a l c hur c h c om m uni t i e s ; a nd by de s tr oy i ng l ocal , fi xed real prop erty, the af fe ct s of hi s c ri m es ar e m ostcl osel y f el tby l ocal c i t i z e ns . A c c or di ngl y , the pr ope rc ha nne l f ore xpr e s s i ng l oc a l outr a ge a nd e xa c t i ng j us t i c e i s the S t a t e c r i m i na l l a w e na c t e d by the r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s of the 451 3. 03 0; T EN N . C ODE ANN . § 39-14-301(b)(2) (A) ( specific ally proscribing “ [a] rson of a placeof worship”) ; O.C.G.A. § 16-7-61. In this w ay , th ema

jority ’sins ist e nc ethat th estatut ec on sti tution ally pre ventsc ha

nn e ls 5 of interstatecommerc e from beingused to ac complish injurious or harmful ends is misplaced. Whil eB alling e r u se d inters tatehighw ays totrave l to theState s in whic h h eburn e d c hurche s, his c rime s a ff

e c te d f ixed re al prop e rt

y and loc al c iti zen s. Ac c ording ly, th ec ha nn e ls o f inters tate c omm e rc ewererend e re d n o le ss c on du c iveto t hefac ili tatio n o f c omm e rc esim ply be c a us e Ballinger used them prior to the c ommissi on of his crimes. I f Congress’s c ommercepower were allowed to stretc h so far , Congress could prosc ribe c ommon law murder, a n act whic h also has localized aff

ects a nd sparks local outrag e, if the perpetrator used a highway to arriveat the scene of the c rime. As the Supreme Court has noted, Congress lac ks the power to proscribecommon law murder. Se eCoh e ns v. Virg ini a , 1 9 U .S. at 42 6 ( statingthat Co ngre ss h a s “no g e neral right” t o p un i s hc o mm o nl awc ri m e s l i k e“ murd e r c o mm i tt e d

w i th i nany o f

th eS t at e s ” ) . A c c o rdi n g l y, by analogy , Congress may

not proscribearson in § 247 under the guise of prote ctinga cha nnel of interstate c ommercewhen a rson has localiz ed af

fec ts and in no way

impairs the conduc t of commerc ial intercour se. 73 af fe ct ed l ocal ci t i ze ns. B ec ause “ C on gres s m ay no ti n the exerc i se of fe dera l 5 pow e re xe r ta uthor i ty w hol l y r e s e r ve d t o the S t a t e s , ” L i nde rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 268 U . S . 5, 19 , 45 S . C t . 44 6, 44 9 (19 25 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed), § 2 47 i s a n un const i tut i on al att em ptby C on gres s t o rea ch beyond i t s c om m er ce po w er . S ee H am m er , 24 7 U . S . at27 3, 38 S . C t . at53 2 (fi nd i ng un const i tut i on al a f eder al s ta tu te p r o s c r ib in g th e tr a f f ic k in g o f g o o d s m a d e w ith c h ild lab o rb e c a u s e it i n f r i n g e d o n St a t e p o l i c e p o w e r ) ; K e l l e rv . U n i t e d St a t e s , 2 1 3 U . S. 1 3 8 , 1 4 8 , 2 9 S. C t . 470, 473 ( 1909) ( i nva l i da t i ng a f e de r a l s t a tut e c r i m i na l i z i ng the i m por t a t i on of a n a l i e n f orpurpos e s of

pr os t i tut i on be c a us e “ the r e i s i n the C ons t i tut i on no gr a nt t o C ongr e s s of

the pol i c e pow e r ” ) ; s e e a l s o J one s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 529 U . S . 848, 8 5 8 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 1 9 0 4 , 1 9 1 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e a d in g 1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 ( i) n a rr o w ly to a v o idAs Judg e Hill’s dissent notes, the majority relies he avily

upon this jurisdi ctional 6 qualifier to uphold the c onstitut ionality of § 247. While the L opez Court faulted the fe deral statut ein t

hat c a sefo r its l a c k o f a

jurisdic tio nal limit atio n, se eL op e z, 5 14 U. S. at 56 1, 11 5 S. Ct. at 1631, it di d not indicate that the presenc e of suc h a limitation would have by itself saved the statute from invalidation. Moreover , the L opez Court’s first and primar y objection to the statute was that it was a

criminal statute that lac ked the requisite nexus to economic activity . See id. at 561. Acc ording ly , Iattach more we ight to what § 247 penalizes than to its inclusi on of a jurisdictional qualifier. 74 th e c o n s titu tio n a l is s u e o f tr a n s f o r m in g a ll a r s o n s u b

je c t to s ta te r e g u la tio n in to f e d e r a l f e lo n ie s ) . S e c ond, a s s um i ng a r gue ndo tha t§ 247 i s i n f a c tpl a c e d c l os e rt o the r e a l m of p e r m is s ib le f

e d e r a l r e g u la tio n o f

in tr a s ta te c o n d u c t r e c o g n iz e d b y W ic k a r d a n d its p r o g e n y b e c a u s e it c o n ta in s th e ju r is d ic tio n a l q u a lif ie r“in o ra f

f e c ts c o m m e r c e ,” 6 i t s l ac k o f the re qu i si t e nexus t o thi ng s e cono m i c s ho w s that§ 2 47 i s bey on d even the furthestre ac h o f C on gres s’ s c om m er ce po w er . In L op ez , the C ou rtfoun d that a f e d e r a l s ta tu te r e g u la tin g f ir e a r m p o s s e s s io n in s c h o o ls la c k e d a n y n e x u s to e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity . S e e L o p e z , 5 1 4 U .S . a t 5 5 1 , 1 1 5 S . C t. a t 1 6 2 6 . S im ila r ly , o n ly by the e m pl oy m e ntof

s e ve r a l i nf

e r e nt i a l c onc l us i ons c a n one c onne c tthe p r o s c r ip tio n in 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 7 to e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity . S e e id . a t 5 6 7 ( r e f u s in g to

“ pi l e i nf e r e nc e upon i nf

e r e nc e ” t o s us t a i n a f

e de r a l s t a tut e w he n i t s pr ovi s i ons r e gul a t e d none c onom i c a c t i vi ty ) . I nde e d, the m a j or i ty ’ s e xpa ns i ve i nt e rpr e t a t i on of W i c ka r d’ s s a nc t i on of

f e de r a l r e gul a t i on of

i ntr a s t a t e c om m e r c e “ r i s ks m a ki ng a w h o le c a ta lo g o f

o r d in a ry s ta te c r im e s a c o n c u rr e n t v io la tio n o f a s in g le75

c o n g r e s s i o n a l s t a tu t e . . . . ” Br a y v . A l e x a n d r i a W o me n ’ s H e a l th Cl i n i c , 5 0 6 U . S. 26 3, 28 7, 11 3 S . C t . 75 3, 76 8 (19 93 ) ( K ennedy, J. , concurri ng ). T he com m er ce po w erhas “ ou t erl i m i t s, ” L op ez , 51 4 U . S . at55 7, 11 5 S . C t . at16 28 , and § 24 7, as a r e g u la tio n o f

n o n e c o n o m ic c r im in a l a c tiv ity , f a lls o u ts id e o f

th o s e lim its . I I I . C onc l us i on W hi l e the bu rni ng of a c hu rc h, “ i s off ensi ve t o the m oral se nse, . . . thatfa ct m u s t n o t c lo s e th e e y e to th e q u e s tio n w h e th e rth e p o w e rto p u n is h th e r e f o ris d e l e g a t e d t o Co n g r e s s o ri s r e s e r v e d t o th e St a t e . ” K e l l e r , 2 1 3 U . S. a t1 4 4 , 2 9 S. C t . a t471. I n c ons trui ng the C om m e r c e C l a us e , w e a r e c ha r ge d w i th uphol di ng the C o n s titu tio n , im p lic it in w h ic h is a f e d e r a lis t d e s ig n . H e r e , b y f a ilin g to ap p r e c ia te the s i gni f

i c a nc e of f e de r a l i s m , the m a

j or i ty ha s m i s c ons true d the l i m i t s of the C o m m e r c e C la u s e a n d a llo w e d a f e d e r a l s ta tu te to r e g u la te in tr a s ta te n o n e c o n o m ic c onduc ti n a n a r e a of

l a w tr a di t i ona l l y pr ot e c t e d f r om f e de r a l i ntrus i on. T hus , the m aj ori ty has bu rned ye tanother bri dg e t o o ur fe dera l i stfoun dat i on s. B ec ause I be l i e ve tha tthi s i nc ur s i on i nt o S t a t e pol i c e pow e r s i s nots a nc t i one d by the C o n s titu tio n , I r e s p e c tf

u lly d is s e n t.76

H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g e, d i ssen t i n g , i n w h i ch B IR C H , C i rcu i tJu d g e, j o i n s: U nde rthe a uthor i ty of

the C om m e r c e C l a us e , C ongr e s s m a y r e gul a t e the ch a n n el s a nd i nstrum ental i t i es of i nt er st at e c om m er ce , as w el l as ce rt ai n act i vi t i es a f f e c tin g c o m m e r c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. L op ez , 514 U . S . 549, 558- 59 ( 1995) . T he i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e a r e thos e “ pe r s ons orthi ngs ” thattrave l in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . I

d. T he channel s of i nt er st at e c om m er ce i ncl ud e a l l m od es o f in te r s ta te o rf

o r e ig n m o v e m e n t o f

c o m m e r c e . I

d . T hu s, the i nstrum ent al i t i es a nd c ha nne l s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e e nc om pa s s the c onc e ptof m ove m e ntof c om m e r c e a c r os s s t a t e l i ne s , a nd the r e ha s ne ve rbe e n a ny s e r i ous que s t i on about C o n g r e s s ’ a u th o r ity to r e g u la te a n d p r o te c t th e m . I d. C on gres s autho ri ty t o regul at e i n tra sta t e a ct i vi t i es w as n o tal w ays r e c o g n iz e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t. U ni t e d Stat e s v . E . C . Kni

ght C o. , 156 U . S . 1, 12 ( 1895) ( “ C om m e r c e s uc c e e ds t o m a nuf a c tur e a nd i s notpa r tof i t ” ) . L a t e r , the C our tr e c ogni z e d the ne c e s s i ty t o pr ot e c ti nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e f r om the bur de ns an d o b stru ct i o n s th atm i g h tb e i m p o sed b y i n trast at e act i v i t i es th ath av e a “ cl o se a n d s u b s ta n tia l r e la tio n ” to it. N L R B v . J one s & L aughl i n St e e l

C or p. , 3 0 1 U .S . 1 ( 1 9 3 7 ) . U n d e rs u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th e C o u r t h e ld , th e r e g u la tio n o f in tr a s ta te a c tiv itie s th a t “a f

f e c t” in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e is w ith in C o n g r e s s ’ c o m m e r c e p o w e r . I d. at37 . E ven p urel y l ocal ac t i vi t i es , such as the w heatgrow n for pers on al77

c ons um pt i on i n W

i cka rd v. F i lb u rn , 3 1 7 U .S . 1 1 1 ( 1 9 4 2 ) , a lth o u g h n o t in in te r s ta te com m er ce , m ay be re gu l at ed i f the abse nce of r egul at i on w ou l d u nd er cuta l ar ger r e g u la to ry s c h e m e a f

f e c tin g in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . L op ez , 514 U . S . a t561. T he ef fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce of such an i ntra st at e a ct i vi ty, ho w ever , m ustbe s ubs tant i al

in o r d e rf

o rth e c o m m e r c e p o w e rto r e a c h it. I d. See a l so U ni t e d Stat e s v . R obe r t

s on , 51 4 U . S . 66 9, 67 1 (19 95 ) ( “ [t ] he ‘ af fe ct i ng com m er ce ’ t est. . . d efi n e[s] th e ex t en to f C o n g ress’ s p o w er o v er p u rel y i n tra s ta te c o m m e r c ia l a c tiv itie s th a t n o n e th e le s s h a v e s u b s ta n tia l i nt erst at e e ff ec t s” ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ) . T h u s , C o n g r e s s ’ p o w e rto r e g u la te in tr a s ta te a c tiv itie s is m or e l i m i t e d tha n i s i t s pow e rt o r e gul a t e the i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s a nd c ha nne l s of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . W he r e a s C ongr e s s m a y r e gul a t e a ny i ns trum e nt a l i ty or c h a n n e l o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , th e C o n s titu tio n p e r m its C o n g r e s s to r e g u la te o n ly tho se i ntra st at e a ct i vi t i es thathave a s ub st ant i al ef fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce . F urtherm ore, such re gu l at i on of i ntra st at e a ct i vi t i es has a l w ay s bee n l i m i t ed t o ec on om i c a c t i vi t i e s . I n U n ite d S ta te s v . Mo r r is o n , 529 U . S . 598, 613 ( 2000) , the C our tobs e r ve d: T hu s f ari n o ur N at i on ’ s hi st ory our ca se s have uph el d C om m er ce C l au se reg u l at i o n o f i n trast at e act i v i ty on l y w h e r e th a t a c tiv ity is ec on om i c i n n ature. . . . A re vi ew of C om m er ce C l ause ca se l aw dem on stra t es thati n tho se ca se s w here w e have s ust ai ned federa l re gu l at i on of i ntra st at e a ct i vi ty bas ed up on the ac t i vi ty’ s s ub st ant i al e f f e c t s o n i n t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e , th e a c t i v i ty i n q u e s t i o n h a s b e e n s o me78

s o r t o f e c o n o m ic e n d e a v o r . ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( c i t i ng L op ez , 5 1 9 U .S . a t 5 5 9 - 6 0 ) . T h u s , C o n g r e s s ’ p o w e rto r e gul a t e i ntr a s t a t e a c t i vi t i e s ha s a l w a y s be e n l i m i t e d t o ec on om i c ac t i vi t i es that have a s u b s ta n tia l e

ffe c t on i nt er st at e c om m er ce . T o h ol d o therw i se , the C ou rthas observed, w ou l d “ conv ertcong re ss i on al autho ri ty und erthe C om m er ce C l ause t o a general po l i ce po w erof the sortre t ai ned by the S t at es . ” L o

p ez, 514 U . S . a t567. T hi s the C ons t i tut i on doe s notpe r m i t . T he C o u r t h a s lo n g r e c o g n iz e d th a t: T he C on st i tut i on re qu i re s adi st i nct i on betw ee n w hati s trul y nat i on al a nd w ha ti s trul y l oc a l . I n r e c ogni z i ng thi s f a c tw e pr e s e r ve one of

the few p ri n ci p l es th ath as b een co n si st en tsi n ce th e [C o m m erce] C l au se w as adop t ed. T he re gu l at i on and p un i shm entof i ntra st at e vi ol ence tha ti s notdi r e c t e d a tthe i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s , c ha nne l s , orgoods i nvol ve d i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ha s a l w a y s be e n the pr ovi nc e of the S t at es . Indeed, w e c an thi nk of no bett erexam pl e of the po l i ce po w er , w h ic h th e F o u n d e r s d e n ie d th e N a tio n a l g o v e rn m e n t a n d r e p o s e d in th e S ta te s , th a n th e s u p p r e s s io n o f v io le n t c r im e a n d v in d ic a tio n o f its v ic tim s . Mo r r is o n , 529 U . S . a t617 ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he C on st i tut i on w i thh ol ds fr om C on gres s ageneral po l i ce po w er , and the C ou rthas al w ay s “ re

j ec t ed re adi ng s of the C om m er ce C l ause and the sc op e of f eder al po w er thatw ou l d p erm i tC on gres s t o exerci se [one] . ” L op ez , 514 U . S . a t596- 97 (T ho m as , J. , concurri ng ). C on gres s has , no nethel es s, fr equent l y s ou gh tt o exerci se such a genera lTh e rearenumerous fe deral st atut e s which do, e xplic itly , c rimin alizetrave l in int e rs tate 1 commerc e in order to commit a traditional common-lawcrime. See, e .g., 18 U.S.C. § 43 (t ra ve lingto eng ag ein a

nim al terrorism); 18 U. S.C. § 2 28 (t ra ve lingto a

vo id p ayingc hil d su pp or t) ; 18 U. S.C. § 1 07 3 ( fl ight to avo id p ro se c uti on); 19 U. S.C. § 1 07 4 ( fl ight to avo id pros e c uti on

fo r de stroyingprop e rt

y ); 18 U. S.C. § 1 23 1 ( int e rs tatetrave l to e ng ag ein strikebre aking ); 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (travelingto eng ag e in murder for hire ); 18 U.S.C. § 2101 (trave ling to ca

use a riot); 18 U.S.C. § 2118 (travelingto eng ag e in robbery involving controlled substances) ; 18 U.S.C. § 2261 (travelingto commit int erstatedomestic violence ); 18 U.S.C. § 22 61 A (trave lingto c ommit inters tatestalking); 18 U. S.C. § 2 26 2 (trave lingto v iol atedo me sti c protec tive order); 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (interstate tra vel to provide minors for

sex). These statutes regulate crime by

focusingon the criminal’s movement in the channe ls of interstate c ommerce . 79 p o lic e p o w e r . L a c k in g a u th o r ity to p u n is h th e c r im e its e lf , C o n g r e s s u s e d its p o w e rto k e e p th e c h a n n e ls a n d th e in s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e s a f e to p ro h i b i ttrav el i n i n t erst at e co m m erce t o co m m i tth e cri m e. B u t , i n th ese st atu t es, 1 the tr a v e l i s the offens e, no tthe com m on -l aw cr i m e i t se l f. S ec t i on 24 7, ho w ever , i s typi ca l of a num ber of m ore r ec entst atut es that se ek t o u se the com m er ce po w er“ t o cas t[a ] re m edy over a w i der, and m ore p u r e ly in tr a s ta te , bo dy of vi ol entcr i m e. ” Mor r is on at6 1 3 (em p h asi s ad d ed ). T h ese st atut es proh i bi tthe act i vi t y o f th e v i o l en tcri m e i t sel f, m ak i n g i tan o ffen se ag ai n st the U ni t e d S t a t e s t o c a rry a gun i n a s c hool z one , c om m i ta r s on, ba tt e ra s pous e , or b u rn a c h u r c h . See 1 8 U . S. C. § § 9 2 2 ( q ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , 8 4 4 , 1 3 9 8 1 , a n d 2 4 7 . Th e Su p r e me C o u r t h a s u n if

o r m ly r e je c te d th e s e a tte m p ts to tr a n s f o r m th e c o m m e r c e p o w e rin to a genera l po l i ce po w erov eri ntra st at e c ri m e. I n L op ez , the C ou rtre vi ew ed a c on gres si on al proh i bi t i on on po ss es si on of a fi re arm i n a sc ho ol zone. T he C ou rthel d thatbecause the kn ow i ng po ss es si on of aThe Court approved sub silentio a different provision of the V iolence A g ainst Wom en 2 Ac t when it

no te d th at Se c tio n 4 02 21 (a) o f t heAc t, which p ro hib its tra v e l to commit spousal abuse, ha s been unifor

mly upheld by

the Courts of Appeals as an appropriate e x erc ise of Congress’ Commerc e Clause a uthority to protect the useof the c hannels of inter state commerce. 529 U.S. at 613 n.5. 80 f i r e a r m i n a s c hool z one doe s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y a f f e c ti nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , the C on gres s e xcee ded i t s autho ri ty und erthe C om m er ce C l ause i n m aki ng i ta f eder al c r im e . I d. a t 5 5 1 . S i m i l a r l y , i n Mor r is on , the C ou rtexam i ned C on gres s’ att em ptt o p rovi de a fe dera l re m edy f

or do m es t i c vi ol ence . T he C ou rtfi rs tno t ed thatdo m es t i c vi ol ence i s notan ec on om i c a ct i vi ty. 52 9 U . S . at61 0. S t at i ng that“ a f ai r r ea di ng of L op ez s h o w s th a t th e n o n - e c o n o m ic , c r im in a l n a tu r e o f th e c o n d u c t a t is s u e w a s c e n tr a l to ou r dec i si on [thatthe st atut e w as un const i tut i on al ] i n thatca se , ” the C ou rthel d that C o n g r e s s ’ a tte m p t to r e g u la te th e n o n - e c o n o m ic , p u r e ly lo c a l c r im e o f d o m e s tic v io le n c e e x c e e d e d its a u th o r ity u n d e rth e C o m m e r c e C la u s e . I d. 2 I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 5 2 9 U .S . 8 4 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , th e C o u r t w a s c a lle d u p o n to i nt erpretthe fe dera l om ni bu s a rs on st atut e, 18 U . S . C . § 8 44 , w hi ch ext ends fe dera l j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe burni ng of a ny r e a l pr ope r ty “ us e d i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e ori n a ny a c t i vi ty a f f e c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn c om m e r c e . ” T he g o v e rn m e n t, s e e k in g to p r o s e c u te th e a r s o n o f a n o w n e r - o c c u p ie d , p r iv a te re si dence, ar gu ed thatC on gres s’ use of the w ords “ af fe ct i ng ” i nt er st at e c om m er ceIn construingthe statute not to reach the a rson of a purely private residenc e, the c ourt 3 avoided Jones’ constitutional claim that criminalization of such an ar son is beyond the commerc e power of Congress. 529 U.S. at 852. 81 s ig n a le d C o n g r e s s ’ in te n t to e x e r c is e its f u ll a u th o r ity u n d e rth e C o m m e r c e C la u s e . T he C our t , how e ve r , r e

j e c t e d the not i on tha tthe m e r e r e c i t a t i on of s uc h w or ds r e nde r e d the s t a tut e i m m une f r om j udi c i a l r e vi e w , a nd pr oc e e de d t o e xa m i ne the qua l i ty of

the c onne c t i ons be tw e e n the r e s i de nc e a nd i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e – the r e c e i ptof

na tur a l ga s , a m or t ga ge a nd a n i ns ur a nc e pol i c y f r om out - of

- s t a t e . T he C our tr e j e c t e d the s e c onne c t i ons a s t oo de m in im is , hol di ng tha t§ 844 “ doe s not re ac h an o w ner- occupi ed re si dence thati s notused for a ny com m er ci al pu rpose. ” I d. a t 8 5 7 . T h e C o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t: “ [ g] i ve n the c onc e rns br oughtt o the f or e i n L op ez , it is ap p r o p r ia te to a voi d the c ons t i tut i ona l que s t i on tha tw oul d a r i s e w e r e w e t o r e a d § 84 4(i ) t o render the ‘ tra di t i on al l y l ocal cr i m i nal cond uct ’ i n w hi ch p e titio n e rJ o n e s e n g a g e d ‘a m a tte rf o rf e d e r a l e n f

o r c e m e n t.’” . . . S e c t i on 844 i s nots oundl y r e a d t o m a ke vi r tua l l y e ve ry a r s on i n the coun try a f

eder al offe nse. I d. a t858. 3 S ec t i on 24 7 al so se eks t o regul at e acom m on -l aw st at e c ri m e – church b u rn in g . T h e r e f

o r e , I b e lie v e o u rin q u iry in to C o n g r e s s ’ a tte m p t to r e g u la te it s houl d pr oc e e d e xa c t l y a s di d the S upr e m e C our t ’ s i n L op ez , Mor r is on , a nd Jones . W e s h o u ld e x a m in e th e in tr a s ta te , n o n - e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity o f c h u r c h b u rn in g to d e te r m in e w h e th e rth a t a c tiv ity m a y b e r e g u la te d b e c a u s e it s u b s ta n tia lly a ffe c tsRe c e ntly a p an e l o f thisc o urt a

p p ro a c h e d

ye t a n o th e r c o n gre s s io n al att e mp t to f e d e rali ze 4 a statec rime– intra statepo sse ssi on of c hil d p or no gra phy – in e xac tly thi s w ay , h oldingtha

t it too exceeded Congress’ a uthority beca use the c onnection betwe en the intra state possession of pornography

and interstatecommerc e wa s too attenuated to justify federal jurisdiction. United Sta te s v. M axwe ll , 386 F.3d 1042 ( 11 Cir. 2004). th S i n c eth em a

j o ri ty c l e arl y requ ire

s such trave l or the use of the instrumentalities for 5 federal jurisdiction to attach, thestatute will not apply to the purely

local ar sonist who burns the church down the street, as Congress clea rly intended by

its 1996 amendment deletingthe trave l re quire ment. 82 i nt er st at e c om m er ce . 4 T h e e n b a n c c o u r t’s a n a ly s is o f § 2 4 7 , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t p r o c e e d in th is w a y . I ts a n a ly s is f

o c u s e s n o t o n th e a u th o r ity o f C o n g r e s s to r e g u la te th e in tr a s ta te act i vi t y of c hur c h burni ng, butr a the ron the m e a ni ng of the j ur i s di c t i ona l hook r e q u ir in g th a t th e o f

f e n s e b e “in o ra f

f e c t” in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . T h e m a jo r ity a s s e r ts th a t b y c r im in a liz in g th e c h u r c h a r s o n th a t is “in ” in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , C on gres s i nt ended t o i nv ok e i t s “ ful l es tautho ri ty” un der the C om m er ce C l ause , in c lu d in g its p o w e rto p r o te c t th e c h a n n e ls a n d in s tru m e n ta litie s o f c o m m e r c e . T he r e f or e , the m a

j or i ty c onc l ude s , § 247 c r i m i na l i z e s the us e of the c ha nne l s a nd i nstrum ent al i t i es of com m er ce i n con nect i on w i th a church ars on . T hu s, church ar son i s afe dera l cr i m e i f the church bu rner tra vel s i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce i n o rder t o burn a c hur c h. 5 I f i nd nothi ng t o s uppor tthi s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of § 247. T he s t a tut e de f

i ne s the of f e ns e a s the a r s on, nottr a ve l t o c om m i tthe a r s on, a nd the us e of the w or d “ i n”Simi larly , “ [s]imp ly be c a us eCongre ss m ay

c on c ludetha

t a pa rticula r ac tiv ity 6 substantially

aff ects interstate commerce doe s not nece ssarily make it so.” Lopez , 514 U.S. at 557 n. 2. In the vac ated opinion in this case, the pa nel held that B allinger’s c rimes did not 7 substantially

aff ect inter state commerce. 312 F .3d 1264 (11 Cir. 2002). th 83 d o e s n o t c h a n g e th a t. T h e s ta tu te is C o n g r e s s ’ a tte m p t to p u n is h th e in tr a s ta te a c t i vi ty of

c hur c h burni ng, notthe us e of the i nt e r s t a t e hi ghw a y t o r e a c h the c hur c h. N or ca n the re ci t at i on of “ i n o r a ff ec t i ng ” c re at e f

eder al j uri sdi ct i on w here n o n e is c o n s titu tio n a lly p e r m itte d . M e r e ly b e c a u s e C o n g r e s s c h o o s e s to p r o h ib it the c hur c h a r s on tha ti s “ i n” i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e doe s notm e a n tha tthe r e i s s uc h a cri m e. W h eth er ch u rch b u rn i n g su b st an t i al l y “ affects” i n t erst at e co m m erce i s a

6 hi ghl y pr obl e m a t i c i s s ue the m a j or i ty doe s note ve n r e a c h. 7 I d o ag ree, h o w ev er, w i th th e en b an c co u rt ’ s co n cl u si o n th atC o n g ress i nt ended t o i nv ok e i t s f

ul l po w erun der the C om m er ce C l ause i n p rohi bi t i ng church a r s on. I n a tt e m pt i ng t o r e gul a t e a pur e l y l oc a l a c t i vi ty , s uc h a s W i c ka r d’ s w he a tor church ars on , C on gres s r ea ches the ou t erl i m i t s of i t s c om m er ce po w erand i nv ok es its f u ll a u th o r ity n o t b e c a u s e it m a y , b u t b e c au s e it m u st . “I n o ra f f e c tin g ,” how e ve r , i s nota s hi bbol e th tha t , ha vi ng be e n c orr e c t l y pr onounc e d, ope ns the d o o r t o fed eral p ro secu t i o n . A s L op ez , Mor r is on , a nd Jo n es ha ve m a de c l e a r , no j u ri sd i ct i o n al h o o k , n o r an y m an tri c i n v o cat i o n b y C o n g ress o f i t s “ fu l l estThe Court obser ved in Morrison , in response to the dissent, that “ [u] nder our written 8 Constitution, however , the limitation of congressional a uthority is not solely

a matter of leg islative grac e.” 529 U .S. at 616. 84 autho ri ty und erthe C om m er ce C l ause ” c an es t abl i sh fe dera l j uri sdi ct i on ov eran in tr a s ta te a c tiv ity th a t ju d ic ia l r e v ie w d e te r m in e s d o e s n o t h a v e th e c o n s titu tio n a lly re qu i re d sub st ant i al ef

fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce . 8 T h u s , I d o n o t a g r e e w ith th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e e n b a n c c o u r t th a t § 2 4 7 's ju r is d ic tio n a l la n g u a g e tr a n s f o r m s it f r o m a n a tte m p t b y C o n g r e s s to p u s h its c o m m e r c e p o w e rto th e lim it b y p u n is h in g th e p u r e ly lo c a l a n d n o n - e c o n o m ic a c t i vi ty of

c hur c h burni ng i nt o a n i nnoc uous r e gul a t i on of the c ha nne l s or i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e by pr ohi bi t i ng the tr a ve l t o burn the church. B y c ol l apsi ng the three L o p ez c a t e gor i e s of

pe r m i s s i bl e r e gul a t i on of c o m m e r c e in to o n e , a ll- p u rp o s e c a te g o ry th a t p e r m its r e g u la tio n o f e v e n p u r e ly lo c a l no n-ec on om i c a c t i vi t i e s – s uc h a s vi ol e ntc r i m e – i f s om e one ors om e thi ng as soci at ed w i th the ac t i vi ty m ov es i n the channel s or ut i l i ze s the i nstrum ent al i t i es of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e pr i ort o the a c t i vi ty , the e n ba nc c our tobl i t e r a t e s the S upr e m e C our t ’ s c a r e f

ul di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n C ongr e s s ’ pl e na ry pow e rove rthe ch a n n el s a nd i n stru m en ta l i t i es of com m er ce , and C on gres s’ m uch m ore l i m i t ed po w erov eri ntra st at e e cono m i c act i vi t i es , w hi ch m ay be re gu l at ed on l y i f the l ocal ac t i vi ty i t se l f has a s ub st ant i al ef fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce .Of c ourse, the Congress may prohibit travel to commit the offense of c hurch bur ning a s 9 it has done in the other statutes mentioned abovein n. 1. Then, however, theoffense prohibited is the travel . 85 F ur the r m or e , i nt e rpr e t i ng “ i n ora f f e c t s ” t o pe r m i tC ongr e s s t o m a ke the l ocal no n-ec on om i c a ct i vi ty of c hur c h bur ni nga f e de r a l c r i m e m e r e l y be c a us e the a r s oni s tc r os s e s s t a t e l i ne s t o c om m i tthe c r i m e , pe r m i t s t oo m uc h. I c a nnotthi nk o f an y l o cal act i v i ty th atC o n g ress co u l d n o treg u l at e, n o r an y cri m e th atC o n g ress coul d n otfe dera l i ze un der s uch an exp ansi ve i nt erpret at i on of the com m er ce p o w e r . C

f . Mor r is on , 52 9 U . S . at61 5 (“ Indeed, i f C on gres s m ay re gu l at e genderm ot i va t e d vi ol e nc e , i tw oul d be abl e t o r e gul a t e m ur de rora ny othe rty pe of v io le n c e s in c e g e n d e r - m o tiv a te d v io le n c e is a s u b s e t o f a ll v io le n t c r im e , is c e r ta in t o h ave l es se r e cono m i c i m pact s than t he l ar ger c l as s of w hi ch i ti s apart ”) . S uch 9 a n e x p a n s iv e in te rp r e ta tio n w o u ld r e n d e rn u ll a n d v o id th e C o u r t’s d e c is io n s in L op ez , Mor r is on , a nd Jones . T he unde r l y i ng pr i nc i pl e s of f e de r a l i s m r e qui r e tha tthe r e a c h of the com m er ce po w erov eri ntra st at e a ct i vi t i es be l i m i t ed t o tho se ec on om i c a ct i vi t i es thatar e i n o r, i f p u rel y l o cal , su b st an t i al l y a ffe c t i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . W i thout e n f o r c in g th e lim its im p o s e d b y th e C o n s titu tio n , a c c o r d in g to th e C o u r t in Mor r is on , “ the c onc e rn tha tw e e xpr e s s e d i n L o p ez tha tC ongr e s s m i ghtus e the C om m er ce C l ause t o com pl et el y obl i t er at e the C on st i tut i on ’ s di st i nct i on betw ee nOr, for that matter, in the Executive. President The odore Rooseve lt once remarke d that 10 “little permanent good c an be doneby any party which . . . fails to reg ard theState, like the county or the municipality , as mere ly a convenient unit for local se lf-g overnment.” Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography 351 (Charle s Scribner’ s Sons 1924) (1913).

86 nat i on al and l ocal autho ri ty s ee m s w el l foun ded. ” I d . a t 6 1 5 . T he vi e w tha tthe di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n the na t i ona l a nd the trul y l oc a l m us tbe m ai nt ai ned i s nota unani m ou s one i n ei ther the C on gres s or the C ou rt . T he 10 Mor r is on m a

j or i ty r e m a r ke d tha tthe di s s e nt ’ s “ r e m a r kabl e the ory [ i s ] tha tthe c om m e r c e pow e ri s w i thoutj udi c i a l l y e nf or c e abl e bounda r i e s . ” 529 U . S . a t608 n. 3 . T h i s th eo ry, al th o u g h rej ect ed th u s far i n o u r co n st i tu t i o n al h i st o ry, rem ai n s a se du ct i ve on e w hen C on gres s, benton do i ng go od , do es vi ol ence t o the pri nci pl es o f fed eral i sm th ath av e su p p o rt ed o u r rep u b l i c fo r o v er tw o h u n d red years. B al l i ng eri s a n evi l do erand t he evi l thathe has don e i s r epre hensi bl e. B e c a u s e h e h a s d o n e th e s e e v il th in g s , h e is lo c k e d u p a n d h e s h o u ld r e m a in s o . B u t to k e e p h im th e r e , I f e a rth a t to d a y w e s te p o v e rth e h is to r ic a l lin e s o c a r e f u lly d r a w n b y th e C o u r t.