High Court to Rule on Law Barring Guns Near Schools : Government: Congress’ power to transform local crimes into federal offenses is at stake. Interstate commerce authority is cited.

The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether the federal government can make it a crime to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, a ruling that could put a major crimp in Congress’ power.

The case of a San Antonio teen-ager who took a handgun to school raises a potentially far-reaching issue of federal authority to combat crime. Congress is often assumed to have the power to get involved in any national problem, including crime, on the theory that it is related to interstate commerce.

But last year, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 on the grounds that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to regulate the “mere possession of a firearm” at school. Under the Constitution, Congress can “regulate commerce . . . among the several states,” but carrying a gun to school does not involve interstate commerce, the appeals court said.

This decision, if allowed to stand, would scrap the 1990 gun law and sap Congress’ power in the war on crime.

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the high court has allowed Congress to regulate virtually every aspect of American life because it is said to be affected by interstate commerce. For example, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld as constitutional on the grounds that racial discrimination in the workplace and at hotels and restaurants affects interstate commerce. The justices said that because patrons at hotels and restaurants may travel across state lines, federal anti-discrimination laws are constitutional.

Nonetheless, some conservative legal scholars and judges have continued to dispute whether Congress indeed has the constitutional power to regulate matters that are inherently local. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has joined in questioning the wisdom, if not the constitutionality, of making state and local crimes into federal offenses.

The anti-crime bill on Capitol Hill includes provisions such as “three strikes and you’re out” and the Violence Against Women Act, which would transform state offenses into federal crimes. These days, members of Congress often say that if it is a national problem, they have the authority to intervene.

But in the guns-in-school case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court, based in New Orleans, looked back to the original Constitution and its more constricted view of Congress’ authority.

“The U.S. Constitution establishes a national government of limited and enumerated powers,” wrote Judge Will Garwood of Austin, Tex. To regulate a new area, Congress must show a clear link to interstate commerce, he said. For example, Congress can certainly regulate the transportation and distribution of guns or illegal drugs because those products move in interstate commerce, he said.

But if Congress can outlaw “the mere possession by any person of any firearm . . . within 1,000 feet of the grounds of any school . . . then it could similarly ban lead pencils, sneakers, Gameboys or slide rules,” said the appellate judge.

The ruling came in the case of Alfonso Lopez Jr., a high school senior from San Antonio, who came to school in 1992 carrying a .38-caliber handgun. He was arrested and convicted of violating the federal law and sentenced to six months in prison.

But the U.S. appeals court voided his conviction and halted the use of the federal guns-in-school act in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. Lopez’s attorney noted that all three states have their own laws making it a crime to have a gun on school grounds.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), sponsor of the no-guns law, said the “lower court’s decision threatens a whole host of federal firearms and other crime statutes.” More than 200,000 students carry guns to school every day, he said.

In its appeal, the Clinton Administration said firearms “present a national problem” that requires federal legislation, and the justices said Monday that they will hear the case of U.S. vs. Lopez, 93-1260. Arguments will be held in the fall, with a ruling likely early next year.

In an unrelated case, the court agreed to rule on whether Congress can ban all federal employees from receiving money for writing articles or giving speeches during their free time.

The ban was included in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and was intended to stop the practice of federal employees taking payments from groups that had business with Congress or a federal agency. These honorariums created at least the “appearance of conflict of interest.”

But last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals here struck down part of the law as a free-speech violation. It cited as examples a Navy technician who wrote articles about Civil War ironclad vessels and a Labor Department lawyer who lectured on Judaism and a Housing Department employee who free-lanced as a theater critic.

In their appeal, attorneys for the Administration asked the court to reinstate the law. The justices will hear arguments in U.S. vs. National Treasury Employees Union, 93-1170, during the fall.

In other action, the court agreed to rule on whether a defendant’s statements during the discussion of a plea bargain can later be used against him. The case involves a San Diego-area man who was convicted of drug dealing after plea-bargain talks failed.

Statements the defendant made during the talks were later cited by federal prosecutors. A U.S. appeals court ruled that such statements cannot be used against a defendant and overturned the conviction. But the high court agreed to hear the government’s appeal in U.S. vs. Mezzanatto, 93-1340.