Court voids school-zone gun ban

April 27, 1995|By Lyle Denniston | Lyle Denniston,Washington Bureau of The Sun

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, in a decision as bold as anything it has done in years, nullified yesterday a 5-year-old federal ban on carrying a gun to school, and seemed to be threatening other national laws, too.

The 5-4 ruling reclaimed the court's power to curb Congress' passage of sweeping laws to deal with the nation's social problems, and instructed lawmakers to confine their efforts to "truly national" matters.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, signaling the importance of what the court was doing, assigned the main opinion to himself. His opinion was crafted in wide-ranging language reminiscent of the court's rhetoric in a series of decisions in the 1930s striking down early New Deal laws that granted the federal government broad powers to pull the nation from the Great Depression.

One justice who dissented yesterday, David H. Souter, referred directly to that era when he questioned whether the new ruling meant "a return to the untenable jurisprudence from which this court extricated itself almost 60 years ago. The answer is not reassuring."

The ruling does not mean that students or others will be free to carry guns to school or to carry them in school neighborhoods. Some 40 states have laws similar to the 1990 federal law that was struck down yesterday. Maryland is one of those states. The ruling dealt only with federal powers.

Even within that realm, though, the ruling potentially could affect other federal gun control laws now awaiting court challenges, and perhaps a wide range of other government regulatory laws.

The Constitution gives Congress wide power to control activity that touches more than one state. It is that "commerce power" that was at issue yesterday, and it is the power Congress has relied upon for decades in enacting controls on the nation's business and social life.

In sentiment, the decision appeared to be close to the states' rights outlook of the new Republican majority in Congress. It may foreshadow a period in the nation's political and legal history when the federal government is put increasingly on the defensive about its authority.

The chief justice conceded that the court repeatedly had allowed Congress to enact broader laws to regulate Americans, but then he declared bluntly: "We decline here to proceed any further."

The court majority made clear that it was putting Congress on notice to respect the Constitution's "distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." The court, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, would not allow that distinction to be obliterated.

The five justices in the majority yesterday held together, with none quibbling about the language in the main opinion.

But two justices who joined the majority -- Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor -- issued a separate opinion that seemed designed to reassure Congress that the court would not move far beyond yesterday's ruling against the school-zone gun ban. Congress, they said, retains strong powers to pass laws to regulate many aspects of the nation's social and economic life.

They also vowed that they would not support the overruling of many prior court rulings endorsing broad congressional power. Still, they, too, counseled Congress to keep the U.S. government out of "areas of traditional state concern."

Justices Kennedy and O'Connor said the court should stand ready to protect states from federal intrusion if Congress "tipped the balance too far" toward federal authority.

4 justices dissent

The ruling produced a sharply worded dissent by four justices, including the two Clinton nominees, Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. First-year Justice Breyer wrote the main dissenting opinion and, for the first time in his brief career, took the unusual step of reading aloud from his dissent in the courtroom. Normally, dissenting justices remain silent at that time.

The dissenters, saying that violence in and around schools undermines education and the future of the nation's work force, complained that the ruling "threatens legal uncertainty in an area of law that . . . seemed reasonably well settled" -- Congress's power to deal with crime.

Paul D. Kamenar, executive legal director of the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, which regularly challenges federal regulatory power, said his group was ecstatic over the ruling.

He predicted that the ruling would help curtail government authority in a number of other areas, including environmental protection and safeguards for endangered species.

One major Republican project that might be threatened by the ruling is the effort to create a national law that essentially would federalize much of the civil justice system, including lawsuits over defective products and professional services.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.