This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioner argues that Section 666(a)(2) of Title 18 is unconstitutional because it does not require a jury to find a constitutional element and intrudes on state authority.
Background and question before the Court
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked whether the statute could be constitutionally applied in some circumstances.
Justice Scalia asked about the $10,000 annual budget of New York State or California.
Justice O'Connor asked whether the case is trying to overcome the problems of Lopez and develop a new line of analysis.
Justice Scalia asked whether $10,000 annually is a one‑shot deal.
Justice Scalia asked if the federal government could criminalize robbery or burglary against a private individual who received federal funds.
Justice Kennedy asked about the McCulloch language and its legitimacy.
Justice Kennedy asked whether a nexus requirement would require juries to find a nexus or could a judge instruct otherwise.
- [1] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 18
- [3] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 20
- [4] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 23
- [5] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 24
- [6] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 27
- [7] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 31
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioner argues that Section 666(a)(2) of Title 18 is unconstitutional because it does not require a jury to find a constitutional element and intrudes on state authority.
What happened at oral argument
Petitioner argues that Section 666(a)(2) of Title 18 is unconstitutional because it does not require a jury to find a constitutional element and intrudes on state authority.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked whether the statute could be constitutionally applied in some circumstances.
Justice Scalia asked about the $10,000 annual budget of New York State or California.
Justice O'Connor asked whether the case is trying to overcome the problems of Lopez and develop a new line of analysis.
Justice Scalia asked whether $10,000 annually is a one‑shot deal.
Justice Scalia asked if the federal government could criminalize robbery or burglary against a private individual who received federal funds.
Justice Kennedy asked about the McCulloch language and its legitimacy.
Justice Kennedy asked whether a nexus requirement would require juries to find a nexus or could a judge instruct otherwise.
- [1] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 18
- [4] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 20
- [5] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 23
- [6] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 24
- [7] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 27
- [8] 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdf, p. 31
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 510ea8cdaf58d433d858-r1-9ac283459873e654.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.