Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Alderman Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A felon challenged a federal law banning his possession of body armor. The court upheld the law, finding the requirement that the armor was previously sold in interstate commerce provided a sufficient constitutional link to Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
Legal Significance: This case affirms the continued viability of Scarborough v. United States, holding that a minimal jurisdictional nexus—an item’s prior travel in interstate commerce—is sufficient to sustain a federal criminal possession statute against a Commerce Clause challenge, even after Lopez and Morrison.
United States v. Alderman Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Cedrick Alderman, who had a prior felony conviction for a crime of violence, was arrested while wearing a bulletproof vest. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 931(a), a federal statute making it unlawful for such a person to possess body armor. The statute’s definition of “body armor” includes an express jurisdictional element, limiting its application to armor that has been “sold or offered for sale, in interstate or foreign commerce.” Alderman entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the constitutionality of the statute. As part of the plea, Alderman stipulated to facts satisfying the jurisdictional element: the vest was manufactured in California, sold to a distributor in Washington, and then sold to the Washington State Department of Corrections before coming into his possession. Alderman moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by criminalizing the purely intrastate, non-economic act of possessing body armor.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the authority to criminalize the intrastate possession of body armor by a felon, based solely on the fact that the body armor was previously sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce?
Yes. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 931 is a constitutional Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repre
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the authority to criminalize the intrastate possession of body armor by a felon, based solely on the fact that the body armor was previously sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the "jurisdictional element" as a key safe harbor for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
Legal Rule
A federal statute criminalizing the possession of an item by a felon Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the controlling precedent of *Scarborough v. United Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Issue: Does the Commerce Clause permit Congress to criminalize a felon’s