Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 687

529US3

Unit: $U54

[10-04-01 09:35:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

612

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

Opinion of the Court

an explicit connection with or effect on interstate com-
Id., at 562. Such a jurisdictional element may es-
merce.”
tablish that the enactment is in pursuance of Congress’ regu-
lation of interstate commerce.

Third, we noted that neither § 922(q) “ ‘nor its legislative
history contain[s] express congressional ﬁndings regarding
the effects upon interstate commerce of gun possession in a
school zone.’ ”
Ibid. (quoting Brief for United States, O. T.
1994, No. 93–1260, pp. 5–6). While “Congress normally is
not required to make formal ﬁndings as to the substantial
burdens that an activity has on interstate commerce,” 514
U. S., at 562 (citing McClung, supra, at 304; Perez, 402 U. S.,
at 156), the existence of such ﬁndings may “enable us to eval-
uate the legislative judgment that the activity in question
substantially affect[s] interstate commerce, even though no
such substantial effect [is] visible to the naked eye.” 514
U. S., at 563.

Finally, our decision in Lopez rested in part on the fact
that the link between gun possession and a substantial effect
on interstate commerce was attenuated.
Id., at 563–567.
The United States argued that the possession of guns may
lead to violent crime, and that violent crime “can be ex-
pected to affect the functioning of the national economy in
two ways. First, the costs of violent crime are substantial,
and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are
spread throughout the population. Second, violent crime
reduces the willingness of individuals to travel to areas
Id.,
within the country that are perceived to be unsafe.”
at 563–564 (citation omitted). The Government also argued
that the presence of guns at schools poses a threat to the
educational process, which in turn threatens to produce a
less efﬁcient and productive work force, which will nega-
tively affect national productivity and thus interstate com-
merce.

Ibid.

We rejected these “costs of crime” and “national pro-
ductivity” arguments because they would permit Congress