Opinion ID: 719755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What Lopez Meant

Text: 60 The portion of the Lopez opinion dealing with the constitutionality of § 922(q) has caused a considerable degree of confusion. In my view, both courts and commentators have mis interpreted that portion of Lopez as establishing some sort of constitutional laundry list by which a federal criminal statute, such as § 922(q) or § 922(g)(1), should be judged. See, e.g., United States v. Bishop, 66 F.3d 569 (3d Cir.1995); Deborah Jones Merritt, Commerce!, 94 MICH. L. REV . 674, 692-713 (1995). Laboring under this misinterpretation, courts and commentators have (not surprisingly) concluded that a federal criminal statute which contains a jurisdictional element must withstand Commerce Clause attack. See Majority opinion at 568 (collecting authorities); Turner, 77 F.3d at 889; Louis H. Pollack, Foreword, 94 MICH. L. REV . 533, 553 (1995) (nexus requirement in a new Gun Free School Zones Act will presumably act as a constitutional bumperguard when it comes to judgment); Kelly G. Black, Note, Removing Intrastate Lawsuits: The Affecting-Commerce Argument After United States v. Lopez, 1995 B.Y.U. L. REV. 1103, 1130-31 (jurisdictional element ensures constitutionality under the Commerce Clause). I cannot agree. See Bishop, 66 F.3d at 596 (Becker, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part). 61 Lopez held that § 922(q) was unconstitutional because it had by its own terms nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic enterprise, Lopez, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1630-31, and because it was not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1631. In light of this holding, it was not necessary--logically or otherwise--for the Court to go on to consider whether § 922(q) contained a jurisdictional element or whether possession of firearms in school zones substantially affected interstate commerce. If, as the Court explained, § 922(q) could not be sustained as a valid exercise of Congress's third category of commerce power, 5 it follows that the constitutional result could have been no different even if: (a) § 922 had contained a jurisdictional element, or (b) possession of firearms in school zones had had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. 62 Although I do not dispute the fact that the Lopez Court addressed the jurisdictional element and substantial effects questions, I cannot agree with those who believe that the reason the Court did so was to enable lower courts to uphold a federal criminal statute, such as § 922(g)(1), under Congress's interstate commerce power merely because the statute contains a jurisdictional element. 6 Instead, Lopez addressed the jurisdictional element and substantial effects questions in order to establish the framework for analyzing future Commerce Clause cases in which the regulated activity, in contradistinction to § 922(q), could be considered commercial, or, even where not itself commercial, commercial by virtue of being essential to a larger regulation of economic activity. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1631. When a congressionally-regulated activity fits either description, courts must additionally consider the jurisdictional element and substantially affects questions. But where it does not (as was the case with § 922(q)), the jurisdictional element and substantially affects questions are unnecessary. See Bishop, 66 F.3d at 591 (Becker, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part) (If the intrastate activity is commercial, the 'substantial effects' jurisprudence applies, allowing Congress to regulate the activity if it in aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce; otherwise, the doctrine is inapplicable and affords Congress no basis for regulation). 63 Accordingly, I would hold that Lopez requires us to analyze the issue presented by this case as follows. 64 1. Does regulating the possession of firearms by convicted felons fall within any of the three categories of activity Congress can regulate under its commerce powers? 65 Lopez instructs us that the first question we must address is whether § 922(g)(1) falls within any of the three categories of activity that Congress can regulate under its interstate commerce power. I would find that, like the statute involved in Lopez, § 922(g)(1) cannot be upheld under the first two categories of activity that Congress is authorized to regulate under that power. Section 922(g)(1) is not a regulation of the use of the channels of interstate commerce, nor is it an attempt to prohibit the interstate transportation of a commodity through the channels of interstate commerce. Nor, for that matter, can § 922(g)(1) be justified as a regulation by which Congress sought to protect an instrumentality of, or a thing in, interstate commerce. Lopez, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1630. In short, because § 922(g)(1) clearly aims to criminalize the mere possession of firearms by convicted felons, Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 575, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1969, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977) ([T]he purpose of Title VII was to proscribe mere possession but ... there was some concern about the constitutionality of such a statute), if it is to be upheld as a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power, it must be under Congress's third category of Commerce Clause authority. I note in passing that the majority and I agree on this point.2. Does § 922(g)(1) have anything to do with commerce or commercial activity, or is it an essential part of a broader regulation of economic activity? 66 Like the statute involved in Lopez, § 922(g)(1) is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. See Lopez, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1630-31. The possession of a firearm by a felon (like possession of a firearm in a school zone) is simply not itself commercial activity. 67 Neither is § 922(g)(1) an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1631. Section 922(g)(1), in addition to prohibiting the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, prohibits such felons from shipping or transporting firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce, as well as from receiving any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped in interstate commerce. Even assuming for argument's sake that such a prohibitory scheme constitutes a regulation of economic activity, I would find that the statutory prohibition on firearm possessions by convicted felons is not an essential part of that scheme. Additionally, with the exception of certain rarified hypothetical instances in which an individual possessed a firearm in or affecting commerce without either shipping or transporting or receiving a firearm in interstate commerce, or vice versa, eliminating the possessory aspect of § 922(g)(1) from that statute would not undercut the regulatory purposes of those parts of § 922(g)(1) that would remain. See Scarborough, 431 U.S. at 575 n. 11, 97 S.Ct. at 1969 n. 11 (Congress intended no distinction between receipt and possession). On authority of Lopez, then, § 922(g)(1) cannot be sustained under those Supreme Court cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. See Lopez, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1631. In other words, § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. 68 The fact that § 922(g)(1) contains a jurisdictional element cannot, as today's majority (like the majority in Turner, 77 F.3d at 889) concludes, majority opinion at 568-69, 569-70, rescue § 922(g)(1) from constitutional attack. Because § 922(g)(1) is not itself a regulation of commercial activity, or even a regulation of non-economic activity that is essential to a broader regulation of economic activity, according to Lopez, we need not look to the statute to determine whether it contains a jurisdictional element. For the same reasons, we need not inquire whether the possession of firearms by convicted felons substantially affects interstate commerce. 7