## Facts

- Nathan Wall and Donald Wall operated a gambling business that violated state gambling laws.
- Federal prosecutors charged them with conducting an “illegal gambling business” under 18 U.S.C. § 1955.
- Section 1955 applies to a gambling business that (1) violates state law, (2) involves five or more persons who conduct or manage it, and (3) operates continuously for over thirty days or earns $2,000 in a single day.
- The Walls did not contest that their operation satisfied § 1955’s statutory elements.
- They pleaded guilty while reserving the right to challenge § 1955’s constitutionality on appeal.
- The district court rejected the constitutional challenge and entered convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1955 exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power when applied to an intrastate gambling business, particularly in light of United States v. Lopez.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that § 1955 is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, including as applied to intrastate illegal gambling businesses.
- The court concluded that Lopez did not displace prior precedent sustaining § 1955.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate intrastate activity that, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
- Illegal gambling businesses are economic enterprises; Congress may treat such activity as a class of economic conduct with substantial interstate effects.
- Lopez’s invalidation of a statute regulating noneconomic local gun possession did not control where the regulated conduct is economic and Congress identified interstate commercial impacts.
- Statutory limits aimed at substantial operations (state-law illegality, “five or more persons,” and duration/revenue thresholds) support treating the regulated activity as a significant economic class Congress may reach without case-specific proof of interstate effects.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld § 1955 against a post-Lopez Commerce Clause challenge, reasoning that the statute targets economic gambling enterprises that, considered in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce, and therefore validly supports federal convictions for qualifying intrastate illegal gambling operations.


United States v. Wall, 92 F.3d 1444 (6th Cir. 1996)