The Supreme Court & the Commerce Clause

Re: The acquiescence of the Supreme Court to the growth of "Federal" crimes under the Commerce Clause

Below are two modern Supreme Court rulings which limited the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause (they are considered to be the first limitations placed on the use of the Clause since the Great Depression):

In U.S. v. Lopez (1995), while the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 made it a Federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone," the Rehnquist Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, as "the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce."

United States v. Morrison (2000), another Rehnquist Court decision, similarly limited the applicability of the Commerce Clause to the creation of Federal crimes. It ruled unconstitutional the provision in the Violence Against Women Act which gave "victims of gender-based violence the right to sue their attackers in Federal court," declaring that such a provision did not fall under the Commerce Clause as it relied on a "causal chain from the initial occurrence of violent crime to every attenuated effect upon interstate commerce." The Court indicated that "[such] reasoning would allow Congress to regulate any crime whose nationwide, aggregated impact has substantial effects on employment, production, transit, or consumption."

Both decisions were 5 to 4 rulings...