Question

What might distinguish how the U.S. Supreme Court found an act of Congress, which sought to prohibit possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, to be an unconstitutional exercise of the interstate commerce clause, but the federal courts have repeatedly upheld the acts of Congress prohibiting discrimination in the area of civil rights, also based on the interstate commerce clause?

Answer 1

The key to understand here is that the US Supreme Court will always favor rights of the people over all others. On the other hand Interstate Commerce Clause is a doctrine that seems to be in a comparatively gray area for all the parties. It has been seen that US Congress has used this clause to intervene and control various areas of business and social life where it would appear to have no power.

In the first instance (gun within 1000 feet of a school), the Congress likely thought about safety. However, in doing so they have restricted the rights of the citizens in and around the school area. Now, consider a hypothetical scenario were burglars or intruders attack a citizen in his house where his house happens to be within 1000 feet vicinity of a school. His right to protect himself is severely reduced and restricted. This becomes a counter safety issue. This means that such a law would have restricted rights of many people and their freedom to choose. This is where US Supreme Court found the use of commercial clause to be unconstitutional. Because it restricted the rights of freedom and choice of people in a region (1000 feet radius around a school).

In the second instance (anti-discrimination), the Congress thought about justice and equality to enact laws that prohibit discrimination. Now, this does not reduce anyone’s rights. It may reduce the rights of organizations but US Supreme Court and other federal courts will always prioritize human rights over rights of the organizations/institutions (given everything is fair). In fact such anti-discriminatory laws gives more rights to people who have traditionally be pushed down by our prejudice, our system and our bigoted views. Thus the result of such laws are to provide more rights and distribute equality among people. Hence Supreme Court and Federal Courts did not think it to be unconstitutional.