Which case limited Congress's Commerce Clause power by ruling that possession of a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity with substantial effect on commerce?

• A. United States v. Lopez (1995)
• B. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
• C. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• D. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Answer: (A)

This question tests the limits of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and how the Court distinguishes between economic activity and non-economic conduct with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez held that simply possessing a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity and does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, so it falls outside Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. This decision emphasized that regulating non-economic, local acts cannot be justified by broad claims of national economic impact, marking a break from the more expansive power seen in earlier cases.

To see the contrast, Wickard v. Filburn famously allowed Congress to regulate local production if it affected interstate markets, illustrating a broad view of the Commerce Clause. The Lopez ruling pulls back from that breadth, requiring a clearer link to economic activity and a substantial interstate impact. The other two cases—Mapp v. Ohio and Gideon v. Wainwright—address Fourth and Sixth Amendment protections, not Congress’s Commerce Clause power, so they don’t address the question of federal authority under commerce.