United States v. Alderman
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge MCKEOWN; Dissent by Judge PAEZ.
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
This case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit requires us to consider whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, art. I, § 8, cl. 3, to criminal*643ize the possession by a felon of body armor that has been “sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 931 and 921(a)(35). Put another way, the issue is whether the sale of body armor in interstate commerce creates a sufficient nexus between possession of the body armor and commerce to allow for federal…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- United States v. LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Agostini v. FeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- United States v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Gonzales v. RaichSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Smith v. MarshCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- United States v. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. SalazarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- United States v. James LuceroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
- Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- United States v. MasonDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2014
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.