United States v. Morrison
Encyclopedia
United States v. Morrison, is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause
and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
.
passed the Violence Against Women Act
, which contained a provision at for a federal civil remedy to victims of gender-based violence, even when no criminal charges were filed.
That fall, at Virginia Tech
, freshman student Christy Brzonkala was allegedly assaulted and rape
d repeatedly by Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, members of the school's football team
. During the school-conducted hearing on her complaint, Morrison admitted having sexual contact with her despite the fact that she had twice told him "no." College proceedings failed to punish Crawford, but initially punished Morrison with a suspension (punishment later struck down by the administration). A state grand jury
did not find sufficient evidence to charge either man with a crime. Brzonkala then filed suit under the Violence Against Women Act.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
held that Congress lacked authority to enact . A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the decision 2-1. The Fourth Circuit reheard the case en banc
and reversed the panel, upholding the district court.
, writing for the majority, held that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause
or the Fourteenth Amendment
, to enact the law.
(VAWA) of 1994 that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court, although program funding remains unaffected. Congress enacted this private civil remedy because of what the minority called a mountain of data suggesting that states did not prosecute crimes against women as often as crimes against men.
The Court majority ruled that VAWA exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The Court, relying on United States v. Lopez
, rejected the argument that VAWA was validly enacted under the Commerce Clause's grant of power to Congress. The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had the power to enact VAWA under the Fourteenth Amendment, relying on the "state action" doctrine. This doctrine, which originated in United States v. Harris
and the Civil Rights Cases
, provides that the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment do not constrain private individuals.
Justice Souter, however, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, argued that enacting VAWA was well within congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and stated that the majority was reviving an old and discredited interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, argued that it was primarily the responsibility of Congress, and not the courts, to put limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. Joined by Justice Stevens, Justice Breyer contended that Congress had been sensitive to concerns of federalism in enacting VAWA, and expressed doubts about the majority's pronouncements on the Fourteenth Amendment.
Morrison, like Kimel
and Garrett
, was part of a series of Rehnquist Court decisions from 1999 through 2001 holding that state sovereignty limits various federal civil rights laws.
(1995), which had held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. There as in Morrison, the Court stressed "enumerated powers" that limit federal power in order to maintain "a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." Lopez therefore limited the scope of the Commerce Clause to exclude activity that was not directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences. Lopez was the first significant limitation on the Commerce Clause powers of Congress in 53 years.
The majority concluded that acts of violence such as those that VAWA was meant to remedy had only an "attenuated" effect, not a substantial one, on interstate commerce. The government, however, argued that "a mountain of evidence" indicated that these acts in the aggregate did have a substantial effect; for this proposition it relied on Wickard v. Filburn
(1942), which held that Congress could regulate an individual act that lacked a substantial effect on interstate commerce if, when aggregated, acts of that sort had the required relation to interstate commerce. Once again relying on Lopez, the majority replied that the aggregation principle of Wickard did not apply because economic effects of crimes against women were indirect, and therefore could not be addressed through the Commerce Clause.
The Court explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority." Referring to Lopez, the Court said: "Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and State authority would blur." The majority further stated, "[I]t is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign." Justice Thomas's concurring opinion also expressed the concern that "Congress [was] appropriating State police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
The majority, quoting from NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
(1937), said that the scope of the interstate commerce power
The Lopez court stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Because VAWA's civil remedy concededly did not regulate the first or second categories, the Morrison court analyzed its validity under the third.
The Court responded that, even if there had been gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities in this case, precedents such as the Civil Rights Cases limit the manner in which Congress may remedy discrimination, and require that a civil remedy be directed at a State or state actor instead of a private party. Such precedents, said the Court, prohibit only state action — i.e., action by state governments — and not private conduct. In other words, unequal enforcement of state laws caused by inaction is, by this interpretation, beyond the scope of the federal government's enforcement of the equal protection clause.
The majority reaffirmed the state action doctrine, and specifically reaffirmed the results reached in United States v. Harris
(1883) and the Civil Rights Cases
(1883), both decided fifteen years after the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification in 1868. In the Civil Rights Cases, the Court had held that the Equal Protection Clause applied only to acts done by states, not to acts done by private individuals. Because the Civil Rights Act of 1875
applied to racial discrimination in private establishments, the Court said in the Civil Rights Cases, it exceeded congressional enforcement power under section 5
of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Harris, the Court ruled that the Clause did not apply to a prison lynching, since the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to private actors, as opposed to state actors. A sheriff (a state actor) had tried to prevent the lynching.
According to Morrison, "assuming that there has been gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities in this case, it would not be enough to save § 13981's civil remedy, which is directed not at a State or state actor but at individuals who have committed criminal acts motivated by gender bias." The Court agreed with the government that there was a "voluminous congressional record" supporting the "assertion that there is pervasive bias in various state justice systems against victims of gender-motivated violence," and the Court also agreed with the government that "state-sponsored gender discrimination violates equal protection unless it serves important governmental objectives...." However, according to the majority, even if there is unconstitutional state action, that only justifies Congress in targeting the state actors, rather than targeting private parties.
The government's argument was that VAWA was in response to "gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities" and that there was "no indication of such state action" in the Civil Rights Cases. According to the Court, however the Civil Rights Cases held that the Equal Protection Clause could not prohibit unequal enforcement of state laws. To support this interpretation of the Civil Rights Cases, the Court quoted one of the Congressmen who had supported the law that the Civil Rights Cases struck down: "There were state laws on the books bespeaking equality of treatment, but in the administration of these laws there was discrimination against newly freed slaves." To the majority, this quote indicated that the law deemed unconstitutional in the Civil Rights Cases was meant to combat the same kind of disparate treatment against which VAWA was aimed.
The majority continued that even if the government's distinction between Morrison and the Civil Rights Cases was valid, the VAWA still was unconstitutionally aimed not at state actors but at private criminal conduct. The Court's City of Boerne v. Flores
(1997) interpretation of Katzenbach v. Morgan
, the majority stated, required that Congress adhere to the Court's state action interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The "congruence and proportionality" requirement of Boerne did not allow Congress to exceed the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the "one way ratchet" interpretation of Katzenbach v. Morgan
(1966) would have allowed Congress to go beyond, but not fall short of, the Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, that interpretation had been rejected by the Court in Boerne in order to prevent "a considerable congressional intrusion into the States' traditional prerogatives and general authority" (the Boerne Court cited arguments made by 19th century "Democrats and conservative Republicans" as they opposed a preliminary draft of the Fourteenth Amendment).
In the case of Morgan, the Court had said that the Equal Protection Clause is "a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining the need for and nature of legislation to secure Fourteenth Amendment guarantees," which some interpreted as an acknowledgment by the Court of congressional power to expand the rights contained in section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Boerne Court said, "This is not a necessary interpretation, however, or even the best one." The Court in Boerne said that only the Court could interpret the Constitution, in order to maintain the "traditional separation of powers between Congress and the Judiciary." Professor Jim Chen, then of the University of Minnesota
(now law dean at the University of Louisville
), has said that while Boerne did not formally overrule Morgan, "after Boerne, Morgan will never again enjoy iconic status." The Morrison Court distinguished Morgan, which had involved federal legislation "directed at New York officials" instead of private parties. The Morrison Court also noted that, unlike the VAWA, the legislation in Morgan "was directed only to the State where the evil found by Congress existed."
or states' rights
decisions, mainly because of the Court's previous federalism or states' rights holdings in Lopez, Boerne, and other decisions.
Feminist Wendy Kaminer
agreed with the courts that Congress had overstepped its bounds by invoking the Commerce Clause: "The price of upholding VAWA's civil rights remedy is an unconstitutional grant of unlimited power to Congress, power that will not always be used wisely or with regard to individual rights. We need to combat sexual violence without making a federal case of it."
Law Professor Peter M. Shane
said that the attorneys general of 36 states had endorsed the VAWA, and Shane argued that the endorsement "exposes one of the more bizarre aspects of the Supreme Court's recent activism on behalf of state sovereignty: From the states' point of view, this campaign is often pointless and sometimes counterproductive." According to Shane, the 36 attorneys general called the Violence Against Women Act "a particularly appropriate remedy for the harm caused by gender-motivated violence."
The Washington Post
came out in favor of the Morrison decision: "The court got it right. If Congress could federalize rape and assault, it's hard to think of anything it couldn't."
Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
.
Background
In 1994, the United States CongressUnited States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
passed the Violence Against Women Act
Violence Against Women Act
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, , and signed as by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994...
, which contained a provision at for a federal civil remedy to victims of gender-based violence, even when no criminal charges were filed.
That fall, at Virginia Tech
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, popularly known as Virginia Tech , is a public land-grant university with the main campus in Blacksburg, Virginia with other research and educational centers throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States, and internationally.Founded in...
, freshman student Christy Brzonkala was allegedly assaulted and rape
Rape
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. The...
d repeatedly by Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, members of the school's football team
Virginia Tech Hokies football
The Virginia Tech Hokies football team is a college football program that competes in NCAA Division I-FBS, in the Coastal Division of the Atlantic Coast Conference. They have more wins in team history than any other program in the ACC. Their home games are played at Lane Stadium which seats over...
. During the school-conducted hearing on her complaint, Morrison admitted having sexual contact with her despite the fact that she had twice told him "no." College proceedings failed to punish Crawford, but initially punished Morrison with a suspension (punishment later struck down by the administration). A state grand jury
Grand jury
A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether a criminal indictment will issue. Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing...
did not find sufficient evidence to charge either man with a crime. Brzonkala then filed suit under the Violence Against Women Act.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia is a United States district court.Appeals from the Western District of Virginia are taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia (in...
held that Congress lacked authority to enact . A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a federal court located in Richmond, Virginia, with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:*District of Maryland*Eastern District of North Carolina...
reversed the decision 2-1. The Fourth Circuit reheard the case en banc
En banc
En banc, in banc, in banco or in bank is a French term used to refer to the hearing of a legal case where all judges of a court will hear the case , rather than a panel of them. It is often used for unusually complex cases or cases considered to be of greater importance...
and reversed the panel, upholding the district court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice RehnquistWilliam Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
, writing for the majority, held that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
or the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
, to enact the law.
Rationale
United States v. Morrison invalidated the section of the Violence Against Women ActViolence Against Women Act
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, , and signed as by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994...
(VAWA) of 1994 that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court, although program funding remains unaffected. Congress enacted this private civil remedy because of what the minority called a mountain of data suggesting that states did not prosecute crimes against women as often as crimes against men.
The Court majority ruled that VAWA exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The Court, relying on United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.-Background:...
, rejected the argument that VAWA was validly enacted under the Commerce Clause's grant of power to Congress. The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had the power to enact VAWA under the Fourteenth Amendment, relying on the "state action" doctrine. This doctrine, which originated in United States v. Harris
United States v. Harris
United States v. Harris, , sometimes referred to as the Ku Klux Case, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to penalize crimes such as assault and murder. It declared that the local governments have the power to...
and the Civil Rights Cases
Civil Rights Cases
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , were a group of five similar cases consolidated into one issue for the United States Supreme Court to review...
, provides that the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment do not constrain private individuals.
Justice Souter, however, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, argued that enacting VAWA was well within congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and stated that the majority was reviving an old and discredited interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, argued that it was primarily the responsibility of Congress, and not the courts, to put limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. Joined by Justice Stevens, Justice Breyer contended that Congress had been sensitive to concerns of federalism in enacting VAWA, and expressed doubts about the majority's pronouncements on the Fourteenth Amendment.
Morrison, like Kimel
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment where the...
and Garrett
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 , was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution...
, was part of a series of Rehnquist Court decisions from 1999 through 2001 holding that state sovereignty limits various federal civil rights laws.
Commerce Clause
With regard to the Commerce Clause, the majority said that the result was controlled by United States v. LopezUnited States v. Lopez
United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.-Background:...
(1995), which had held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. There as in Morrison, the Court stressed "enumerated powers" that limit federal power in order to maintain "a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." Lopez therefore limited the scope of the Commerce Clause to exclude activity that was not directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences. Lopez was the first significant limitation on the Commerce Clause powers of Congress in 53 years.
The majority concluded that acts of violence such as those that VAWA was meant to remedy had only an "attenuated" effect, not a substantial one, on interstate commerce. The government, however, argued that "a mountain of evidence" indicated that these acts in the aggregate did have a substantial effect; for this proposition it relied on Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S...
(1942), which held that Congress could regulate an individual act that lacked a substantial effect on interstate commerce if, when aggregated, acts of that sort had the required relation to interstate commerce. Once again relying on Lopez, the majority replied that the aggregation principle of Wickard did not apply because economic effects of crimes against women were indirect, and therefore could not be addressed through the Commerce Clause.
The Court explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority." Referring to Lopez, the Court said: "Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and State authority would blur." The majority further stated, "[I]t is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign." Justice Thomas's concurring opinion also expressed the concern that "Congress [was] appropriating State police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
The majority, quoting from NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 , was a United States Supreme Court case that declared that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was constitutional...
(1937), said that the scope of the interstate commerce power
The Lopez court stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Because VAWA's civil remedy concededly did not regulate the first or second categories, the Morrison court analyzed its validity under the third.
Equal Protection Clause
The United States Government argued that pervasive gender stereotypes and assumptions permeated state justice systems. It argued these forms of state bias led to "insufficient investigation and prosecution of gender-motivated crime, inappropriate focus on the behavior and credibility of the victims of that crime, and unacceptably lenient punishments for those who are actually convicted of gender-motivated violence." This bias, the government argued, deprived women of the equal protection of the laws, and the private civil remedy of VAWA was meant to redress "both the States' bias and deter future instances of gender discrimination in the state courts."The Court responded that, even if there had been gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities in this case, precedents such as the Civil Rights Cases limit the manner in which Congress may remedy discrimination, and require that a civil remedy be directed at a State or state actor instead of a private party. Such precedents, said the Court, prohibit only state action — i.e., action by state governments — and not private conduct. In other words, unequal enforcement of state laws caused by inaction is, by this interpretation, beyond the scope of the federal government's enforcement of the equal protection clause.
The majority reaffirmed the state action doctrine, and specifically reaffirmed the results reached in United States v. Harris
United States v. Harris
United States v. Harris, , sometimes referred to as the Ku Klux Case, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to penalize crimes such as assault and murder. It declared that the local governments have the power to...
(1883) and the Civil Rights Cases
Civil Rights Cases
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , were a group of five similar cases consolidated into one issue for the United States Supreme Court to review...
(1883), both decided fifteen years after the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification in 1868. In the Civil Rights Cases, the Court had held that the Equal Protection Clause applied only to acts done by states, not to acts done by private individuals. Because the Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was a United States federal law proposed by Senator Charles Sumner and Representative Benjamin F. Butler in 1870...
applied to racial discrimination in private establishments, the Court said in the Civil Rights Cases, it exceeded congressional enforcement power under section 5
Congressional power of enforcement
A Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XVIII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI...
of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Harris, the Court ruled that the Clause did not apply to a prison lynching, since the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to private actors, as opposed to state actors. A sheriff (a state actor) had tried to prevent the lynching.
According to Morrison, "assuming that there has been gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities in this case, it would not be enough to save § 13981's civil remedy, which is directed not at a State or state actor but at individuals who have committed criminal acts motivated by gender bias." The Court agreed with the government that there was a "voluminous congressional record" supporting the "assertion that there is pervasive bias in various state justice systems against victims of gender-motivated violence," and the Court also agreed with the government that "state-sponsored gender discrimination violates equal protection unless it serves important governmental objectives...." However, according to the majority, even if there is unconstitutional state action, that only justifies Congress in targeting the state actors, rather than targeting private parties.
The government's argument was that VAWA was in response to "gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities" and that there was "no indication of such state action" in the Civil Rights Cases. According to the Court, however the Civil Rights Cases held that the Equal Protection Clause could not prohibit unequal enforcement of state laws. To support this interpretation of the Civil Rights Cases, the Court quoted one of the Congressmen who had supported the law that the Civil Rights Cases struck down: "There were state laws on the books bespeaking equality of treatment, but in the administration of these laws there was discrimination against newly freed slaves." To the majority, this quote indicated that the law deemed unconstitutional in the Civil Rights Cases was meant to combat the same kind of disparate treatment against which VAWA was aimed.
The majority continued that even if the government's distinction between Morrison and the Civil Rights Cases was valid, the VAWA still was unconstitutionally aimed not at state actors but at private criminal conduct. The Court's City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 , was a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under the fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment...
(1997) interpretation of Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact laws which enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution.- Facts :...
, the majority stated, required that Congress adhere to the Court's state action interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The "congruence and proportionality" requirement of Boerne did not allow Congress to exceed the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the "one way ratchet" interpretation of Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact laws which enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution.- Facts :...
(1966) would have allowed Congress to go beyond, but not fall short of, the Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, that interpretation had been rejected by the Court in Boerne in order to prevent "a considerable congressional intrusion into the States' traditional prerogatives and general authority" (the Boerne Court cited arguments made by 19th century "Democrats and conservative Republicans" as they opposed a preliminary draft of the Fourteenth Amendment).
In the case of Morgan, the Court had said that the Equal Protection Clause is "a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining the need for and nature of legislation to secure Fourteenth Amendment guarantees," which some interpreted as an acknowledgment by the Court of congressional power to expand the rights contained in section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Boerne Court said, "This is not a necessary interpretation, however, or even the best one." The Court in Boerne said that only the Court could interpret the Constitution, in order to maintain the "traditional separation of powers between Congress and the Judiciary." Professor Jim Chen, then of the University of Minnesota
University of Minnesota Law School
The University of Minnesota Law School, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, is a professional school of the University of Minnesota. The school offers a Juris Doctor , Masters of Law for Foreign Lawyers, and joint degrees with J.D./M.B.A., J.D./M.P.A, J.D./M.A., J.D./M.S., J.D./Ph.D.,...
(now law dean at the University of Louisville
Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
The Louis D. Brandeis School of Law is the law school of the University of Louisville. Established in 1846, it is the oldest law school in Kentucky and the fifth oldest in the country in continuous operation. The law school is named after Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, who served on the Supreme...
), has said that while Boerne did not formally overrule Morgan, "after Boerne, Morgan will never again enjoy iconic status." The Morrison Court distinguished Morgan, which had involved federal legislation "directed at New York officials" instead of private parties. The Morrison Court also noted that, unlike the VAWA, the legislation in Morgan "was directed only to the State where the evil found by Congress existed."
Responses to Morrison
The United States v. Morrison decision was seen by the press as part of the Rehnquist Court's series of federalismFederalism
Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and...
or states' rights
States' rights
States' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government. It is often considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation...
decisions, mainly because of the Court's previous federalism or states' rights holdings in Lopez, Boerne, and other decisions.
Feminist Wendy Kaminer
Wendy Kaminer
Wendy Kaminer is a lawyer and writer. She has written several books on contemporary social issues, including A Fearful Freedom: Women's Flight From Equality, about the conflict between egalitarian and protectionist feminism; I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional: The Recovery Movement and Other...
agreed with the courts that Congress had overstepped its bounds by invoking the Commerce Clause: "The price of upholding VAWA's civil rights remedy is an unconstitutional grant of unlimited power to Congress, power that will not always be used wisely or with regard to individual rights. We need to combat sexual violence without making a federal case of it."
Law Professor Peter M. Shane
Peter M. Shane
Peter Milo Shane is a law professor and writer. His best-known scholarly work focuses mainly on two subjects. The first is separation of powers law, especially law and the presidency. His work often explores what he calls an institutional conception of the rule of law in a separation of powers...
said that the attorneys general of 36 states had endorsed the VAWA, and Shane argued that the endorsement "exposes one of the more bizarre aspects of the Supreme Court's recent activism on behalf of state sovereignty: From the states' point of view, this campaign is often pointless and sometimes counterproductive." According to Shane, the 36 attorneys general called the Violence Against Women Act "a particularly appropriate remedy for the harm caused by gender-motivated violence."
The Washington Post
The Washington Post
The Washington Post is Washington, D.C.'s largest newspaper and its oldest still-existing paper, founded in 1877. Located in the capital of the United States, The Post has a particular emphasis on national politics. D.C., Maryland, and Virginia editions are printed for daily circulation...
came out in favor of the Morrison decision: "The court got it right. If Congress could federalize rape and assault, it's hard to think of anything it couldn't."
See also
- Rehnquist Court
- Congressional power of enforcementCongressional power of enforcementA Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XVIII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 529
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
External links
- Text at DOJ
- Dimino, Michael. Yes, Virginia (Tech), Our Government Is One Of Limited Powers: United States v. Morrison, 120 S.Ct. 1740 (2000), 24 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 895 (2001).