Which case limited the reach of the Commerce Clause by holding that carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce?

• A. United States v. Lopez (1995)
• B. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
• C. Printz v. United States (1997)
• D. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Answer: (A)

The question tests how far the Commerce Clause reaches when the activity involved isn’t clearly economic. United States v. Lopez (1995) held that carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity and does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, so regulating it under the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s commerce power. The Court emphasized that regulation under the Commerce Clause requires a substantial connection to economic activity or interstate commerce, not just a remote or indirect link.

This marks a limit after Wickard v. Filburn, which allowed Congress to regulate local activities with substantial aggregate effects on interstate commerce. Lopez rejects applying that broad logic to non-economic activities like possessing a firearm in a school zone, leaving such concerns to state and local authority. The other cases differ: Wickard expands federal power in economic contexts; Printz deals with federalism and state officers rather than commerce power; Gibbons v. Ogden lays the foundational reach of federal commerce power but does not restrict it in the way Lopez does.