Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 931.0

529US3

Unit: $U61

[11-02-00 07:34:21] PAGES PGT: OPIN

856

JONES v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

It surely is not the common perception that a private,
owner-occupied residence is “used” in the “activity” of re-
ceiving natural gas, a mortgage, or an insurance policy. Cf.
Bailey, 516 U. S., at 145 (interpreting the word “use,” as it
appears in 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1), to mean active employment
of a ﬁrearm and rejecting the Government’s argument that
a gun is “used” whenever its presence “protect[s] drugs” or
“embolden[s]” a drug dealer). The Government does not al-
lege that the Indiana residence involved in this case served
as a home ofﬁce or the locus of any commercial undertaking.
The home’s only “active employment,” so far as the record
reveals, was for the everyday living of Jones’s cousin and
his family.

Our decision in Russell does not warrant a less
“use”-centered reading of § 844(i).
In that case, which in-
volved the arson of property rented out by its owner, see
supra, at 853, the Court referred to the recognized distinc-
tion between legislation limited to activities “in commerce”
and legislation invoking Congress’ full power over activity
substantially “affecting . . . commerce.” 471 U. S., at 859–
860, and n. 4. The Russell opinion went on to observe, how-
ever, that “[b]y its terms,” § 844(i) applies only to “property
that is ‘used’ in an ‘activity’ that affects commerce.”
Id., at
862.
“The rental of real estate,” the Court then stated, “is
Ibid.8 Here, as earlier
unquestionably such an activity.”
emphasized, the owner used the property as his home, the
center of his family life. He did not use the residence in any
trade or business.

8 Notably, the Court in Russell did not rest its holding on the expansive
interpretation advanced by the Government both in Russell and in this
case. Compare Brief for United States in Russell v. United States, O. T.
1984, No. 435, p. 15 (“Petitioner used his building on South Union Street
in an activity affecting interstate commerce by heating it with gas that
moved interstate.”), with Russell, 471 U. S., at 862 (focusing instead on
fact that “[t]he rental of real estate is unquestionably . . . an activity”
affecting commerce).