Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 935

529US3

Unit: $U61

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

860

JONES v. UNITED STATES

Thomas, J., concurring

we have wisely decided that “unless Congress conveys its
purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have signiﬁcantly
changed the federal-state balance.” United States v. Bass,
404 U. S. 336, 349 (1971). For this reason, I reiterate my
ﬁrm belief that we should interpret narrowly federal crimi-
nal laws that overlap with state authority unless congres-
sional intention to assert its jurisdiction is plain.*

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins,

concurring.

In joining the Court’s opinion, I express no view on the
question whether the federal arson statute, 18 U. S. C. § 844(i)
(1994 ed., Supp. IV), as there construed, is constitutional in
its application to all buildings used for commercial activities.

*See Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U. S. 681, 700, n. 2 (1985)
(Stevens, J., dissenting); Bennett v. New Jersey, 470 U. S. 632, 654–655,
n. 16 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Garcia v. United States, 469 U. S.
70, 89–90 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Bell v. United States, 462 U. S.
356, 363 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting); McElroy v. United States, 455
U. S. 642, 675 (1982) (Stevens, J., dissenting).