Case Summary
**Case Summary: United States v. Morrison (Docket No. 7855463)**
**Court:** United States Supreme Court
**Argued:** November 9, 2000
**Decided:** May 15, 2001
**Case Overview:**
United States v. Morrison centers on the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. The legislation created a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence, allowing them to sue their attackers in federal court. The case arose after Christy Brzonkala, a college student, alleged that two male students, Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, sexually assaulted her. Brzonkala initially reported the incident to the university, which conducted an investigation but did not result in disciplinary action against the accused. Following this, she sought relief under VAWA.
**Legal Questions:**
1. Does Congress have the authority to enact VAWA under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment?
2. Are the provisions of VAWA which allow for federal civil suits by victims of gender-motivated violence constitutional?
**Supreme Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the provisions of VAWA were unconstitutional. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, concluded that Congress lacked the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate non-economic, violent crimes that occur between individuals, such as those addressed in VAWA. The Court argued that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to enact legislation that addresses violence against women as a general issue rather than a specific economic activity.
**Key Points of the Ruling:**
- The Court held that the civil remedy provision in VAWA exceeded congressional authority and intruded upon areas traditionally reserved for state regulation.
- The decision emphasized the distinction between economic activity, which Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause, and non-economic, violent acts.
- The ruling underscored the importance of states' rights in addressing issues of crime and violence, implying that states should have the primary responsibility for dealing with such matters.
**Impact:**
The decision in United States v. Morrison had significant implications for federal legislation addressing crimes motivated by gender. It curtailed the scope of federal involvement in domestic violence cases and set a precedent regarding congressional authority related to civil rights and gender discrimination.
**Dissenting Opinion:**
The dissent, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that Congress was within its rights to address the issue of gender-based violence through VAWA, highlighting the pervasive nature of such violence and its economic impact on society. The dissenters contended that the ruling undermined the efforts to provide effective remedies for victims of gender discrimination and violence.
---
This summary encapsulates the key elements and implications of the case without delving into excessive legal jargon or complexities, making it accessible for a broad audience.