Question

Supreme Court Case: (United States v. Lopez (1995))

1. Identify the plaintiff and defendant in the case.

2. Explain why the case was brought to the Court.

3. Describe the goal of each side in the case. Why was the case brought to the Court, and what type of decision was desired?


Constitutional Connections:

4. Explain the key rights or amendments involved in the case.

5. Did the case primarily center on an issue of civil rights or civil liberties? Explain.


Case Outcomes:

6. Describe the majority decision of the Court and several arguments as to why the justices ruled the way they did.

7. If there was one dissenting decision of the Court, explain it in detail. Why did some justices disagree with the majority?

8. What was the precedent set by the decision of the Court? What impact did it have on American society?

Answer 1

1. Identify the plaintiff and defendant in the case.

The plaintiff is Otis McDonald and the defendant is the City of Chicago.

2. Explain why the case was brought to the Supreme Court.

This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2008, when Otis McDonald, a retired custodian sued the city of Chicago to question the validity of a 1982 Chicago law, which banned the registration of handguns and required registration as a prerequisite of possession of a firearm.

3. Describe the goal of each side in the case. Why was the case brought to the court, and what type of decision was desired?

The goal of the defendant was to argue that states should have the authority over firearm regulation. The goal of McDonald’s argument was that the Second Amendment protects the rights of American citizens, which the states should not abridge. The type of decision desired was the court ruling in favor of McDonald and the principles of the Second Amendment.

4. Explain the key rights or amendments involved in the case.

The key right involved in this case is the right of a person to carry a firearm; the amendments involved in this case are the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Second Amendment emphasizes the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms”, which is incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

5. Did the case primarily center on an issue of civil rights or liberties, or does it primarily center on other issues? Explain.

This case primarily centers on an issue of civil liberties because it debates whether or not a person could bear a firearm on his or her own right; without interference from the state, in which that person lives in.

6. Describe the majority decision of the court and several arguments as to why the justices ruled the way they did.

The Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the Second Amendment’s principle, which is under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, applies mainly applies to all federal, state, and local governments; ergo ruling in favor of McDonald.

7. If there was one dissenting decision of the court, explain it in detail. Why did some justices disagree with the majority?

One dissenting decision of the court was made by judges Stephan Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor was that the jury’s “historical analysis was flawed and that historical evidence bearing upon the federal character of a ‘private armed self -defense right’ was unclear at best” (Britannica).

8. What precedent was set by the court’s decision? What impact did it have on US society?

The precedent that was set by the court’s decision was that a person’s right to own a firearm should not be infringed upon by federal, state, and local governments. This case impacted the United States society by changing the long-held concepts of federalism.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer 2

Step-by-step explanation:

1. In the Supreme Court Case: (the United States v. Lopez (1995) the plaintiff was Alfonso Lopez, and the defendant was the federal government (the United States).

2. The case brought to court because Mr. Lopez was found guilty and sentenced by a Texas court because he brought a firearm into school premises, which violated the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1990, a federal offense.

3. The goal of the defendants was to argue that the federal government overstepped its authority by applying the Gun-Free Schools Act law to the state and that the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act was a criminal law that was not under the Commerce Clause of the constitution. In other words, he was convicted using federal law even though schools were supposed to be controlled by their state laws; thus, they wanted the sentencing overturned.

4. The bill of rights amendment 2 and amendment 10 were involved in the case. In other words, "the Right to Bear Arms" and the power of the state not granted to the federal government was involved.

5. The case centers on civil rights, considering the fact it involved seeking a fair trial; as the accused felt the law used to charge him was unlawfully used.

6. Chief Justice William Rehnquist who supported the majority decision said, “The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity...and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. "

In other words, the Commerce clause did not apply here, as Lopez's possession of a gun had nothing to do with commerce so as to warrant the federal government's involvement in the case.

7. The decision was a 5-4 decision by the justices. It seems some justices still felt that the Act did not violate the Constitution. The 4 who voted against were of the opinion that the federal government (Congress) still has the authority under the constitution to apply the Act to states.

8. The case has been a precedent to show that it is unlawful for the federal government to overstep its authority when the constitution doesn't allow that. The impact of the case has reechoed the importance of the separation of powers in American society.