Which case set the stage for modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause limits by ruling that certain activities cannot be regulated under federal power?

• A. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
• B. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
• C. United States v. Lopez (1995)
• D. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

Answer: (C)

The main idea being tested is where the line is drawn around Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Lopez is the pivotal ruling that tightened those boundaries by holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act cannot be justified as regulating interstate commerce, because carrying a gun in a local school zone is a non-economic, substantial-regulation-from-far-away activity that does not meaningfully affect interstate commerce. This case signals a shift toward a more restrained interpretation of the Commerce Clause—one that requires a direct economic connection or a fit within the traditional categories (such as channels or instrumentalities of commerce, or activities with a substantial economic effect). By contrast, other landmark decisions either expanded federal power (like the broad reading seen in earlier cases) or upheld regulation when the link to commerce was clear, but Lopez is the briefest, clearest articulation that not every local activity can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause, setting the modern approach.