Citation network
United States Vs. Lopez
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 26, 1995
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 549 (1995) October Term, 1994 Syllabus United States V. LopezSearch
-
cl. 3. The Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress' commerce power in Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce. See, e. g., Veazie v. MoorSearch
-
the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. See Wickard v. FilburnSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Carter v. CarterSearch
-
regulation. See, e. g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 342 (1914). In A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 548. Two years later, in the watershed case of NLRB v. JonesSearch
-
are within Congress' power to regulate. Id., at 37. In United States v. DarbySearch
-
Id., at 118. 556 See also United States v. WrightwoodSearch
-
In Wickard v. FilburnSearch
-
basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce. See, e. g., Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Perez v. UnitedSearch
-
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 379 U. S. 241 , 252-253 (1964).2 Similarly, in Maryland v. WirtzSearch
-
to enforce. Id., at 196, overruled on other grounds, National League of Cities v. UserySearch
-
U. S. 833 (1976), overruled by Garcia v. SanSearch
-
quoting Caminetti v. UnitedSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
interstate commerce in order to be within Congress' power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. Compare Preseault v. ICCSearch
-
Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, and pro- 560 duction and consumption of homegrown wheat, Wickard v. FilburnSearch
-
by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce. For example, in United States v. BassSearch
-
States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.''' Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
U. S. 619,635 (1993) (quoting Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
see also Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.''' United States v. EnmonsSearch
-
U. S. 396 , 411-412 (1973) (quoting United States v. BassSearch
-
see also United States v. FiveSearch
-
and indeed even congressional committee findings, regarding effect on interstate commerce, see, e. g., Preseault v. ICCSearch
-
accumulated institutional expertise regarding the regulation of firearms through previous enactments. Cf. Fullilove v. KlutznickSearch
-
and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. See United States v. EvansSearch
-
Post, at 630. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Id., at 405. See also Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
question whether the congressional power was exclusive, a question reserved by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
local law or the necessity for the Court to invalidate local law because of the dormant national power. Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
under Marshall, Taney and Waite (1937) (hereinafter Frankfurter), and difficulties of application persisted, see Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
an effect on interstate commerce. Id., at 16. And in Adair v. UnitedSearch
-
E. C. Knight's reliance on the manufacturing-commerce distinction in Standard Oil Co. of N. J. v. UnitedSearch
-
The Court likewise rejected the rationale of Adair when it decided, in Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. RailwaySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial