Yes, U.S. v. Lopez is often cited as an example of judicial restraint. In this 1995 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause by enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Court held that the law, which made it a federal crime to possess a gun in a school zone, did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce and thus was beyond Congress’s power to regulate.
This decision was significant because it marked a shift in the Court’s approach to federal power. Prior to U.S. v. Lopez, the Court had generally upheld expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause, allowing Congress to regulate a wide range of activities. By striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the Court demonstrated a willingness to limit federal authority and respect the boundaries set by the Constitution.
Judicial restraint refers to the idea that judges should limit the exercise of their own power and defer to the decisions of elected representatives whenever possible. In U.S. v. Lopez, the Court exercised restraint by refusing to extend the Commerce Clause to cover activities that do not have a direct and substantial impact on interstate commerce. This decision reinforced the principle of federalism, which divides power between the federal government and the states, and underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between these two levels of government.