Whether the federal offense of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, 18 U.S.C. § 2332a, only requires a de minimis effect on interstate commerce even though the activity is not economic in nature, or whether the government must prove a substantial effect on commerce as required by United States v. Lopez

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), this Court held that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate three broad categories of activities including “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” In Taylor v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2074 (2016), this Court confirmed that the substantial-effect standard applies to Hobbs Act prosecutions, although this Court further held that when the activity in question is economic in nature, the substantial effect may be proven based on an aggregate effect. However, the Eleventh Circuit held, based on its precedent regarding Hobbs Act cases, that a prosecution for attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, 18 U.S.C. § 2332a, only requires a de minimis effect on commerce even though the activity at issue was not economic in nature. This Court must decide whether attempted use of a weapon of mass : destruction, 18 U.S.C. § 2332a, only requires a de minimis effect on commerce even though the activity at issue is not economic in nature, or whether, as mandated by this Court in Lopez, the government must prove a substantial effect on commerce. II. This Court has held that proportionality is a bedrock principle of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. As such, this Court has instructed Courts reviewing an Eighth Amendment challenge to a specific sentence to conduct a specific proportionality analysis to determine whether the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate and whether it violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court of appeals here failed to engage in that proper analysis and rejected Mr. Suarez’s claim without comparing Mr. Suarez’ sentence with sentences for similar offenses and offenders. Here, Mr. Suarez, a first-time offender, was sentenced to Life without the possibility of parole and that sentence is grossly disproportionate to sentences for similar offenses and it violates the Eighth Amendment. i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no