Final answer:
The difference between United States v. Lopez and NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp comes down to a shift in how the Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce Clause over time. While the earlier case expanded federal power to regulate labor relations as part of economic activity, the later case restricted Congress's ability to legislate non-economic activity based on Commerce Clause powers.
Step-by-step explanation:
To explain how the facts in United States v. Lopez led to a different holding than in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, it is important to recognize the two cases' distinct contexts. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, the Supreme Court bolstered the New Deal framework by affirming that Congress could use its authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate manufacturing activities and labor-management relations.
This was a pivotal moment that transformed the relationship Americans had with the national government, with the New Deal kickoff providing numerous public services and social benefits.
In stark contrast, United States v. Lopez in 1995 featured the Court scaling back Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause by ruling that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which Lopez was charged under, was not an economic activity that could be regulated through the Commerce Clause. This indicated a shift in the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause, limiting Congress's power in areas where it had no direct economic effect.