United States v. Morrison

United States v. Morrison is a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The case involved a University of Virginia student, Christy Brzonkala, who was allegedly raped by University of Virginia football players Antonio Morrison and James Landale, and her subsequent lawsuit against the players under the Violence Against Women Act. The case was heard by Justices William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

Background

The Violence Against Women Act was passed by Congress in 1994, with the goal of providing federal funding and support for domestic violence programs and services, as well as creating a civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence. The law was supported by NOW, the ACLU, and other women's rights organizations, including the NCADV and the FVPF. However, the law was also opposed by some conservative groups, such as the NRA and the AEI, who argued that it was an overreach of federal power and would lead to an increase in frivolous lawsuits.

The Case

The case began when Christy Brzonkala was allegedly raped by Antonio Morrison and James Landale in 1994, and she subsequently filed a lawsuit against the players under the Violence Against Women Act. The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, where it was dismissed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser. The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the district court's decision and allowed the case to proceed. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in 1999. The case was argued by lawyers Kathleen M. Sullivan and Paul Bender, and was supported by amicus briefs from organizations such as the ABA, the NAWL, and the LWV.

Decision

The Supreme Court issued its decision in the case on May 15, 2000, with a 5-4 majority opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The majority opinion held that the Violence Against Women Act's civil remedy provision was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The majority opinion was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice David Souter, and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The decision was supported by conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, but was opposed by liberal groups such as the ACLU and the NOW.

Impact

The decision in the case had a significant impact on the Violence Against Women Act and the ability of victims of gender-based violence to seek civil remedies. The decision was seen as a major setback for women's rights organizations, including the NCADV and the FVPF, which had supported the law. The decision was also seen as a victory for conservative groups, including the NRA and the AEI, which had opposed the law. The decision was criticized by President Bill Clinton, who had signed the Violence Against Women Act into law, and by Senator Joseph Biden, who had sponsored the law. The decision was also criticized by international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which argued that it would make it more difficult for victims of gender-based violence to seek justice.

Aftermath

The decision in the case led to a renewed effort to pass new legislation that would provide civil remedies for victims of gender-based violence. In 2000, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which provided new protections for victims of human trafficking and domestic violence. The law was supported by women's rights organizations, including the NOW and the ACLU, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The decision in the case also led to increased awareness and activism around the issue of gender-based violence, with organizations such as the NCADV and the FVPF working to provide support and services to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. The case has been cited in numerous other cases, including Gonzales v. Raich and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and has had a lasting impact on the development of federal power and the Commerce Clause.