Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Morrison

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseSection 5 Fourteenth AmendmentVAWAgender violenceCommerce ClauseSection 5Fourteenth Amendment

Facts

Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 13981 as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, creating a federal civil remedy for victims of crimes of violence motivated by gender. Brzonkala alleged that Morrison and Crawford assaulted and repeatedly raped her while they were students at Virginia Tech, and she sued under § 13981. Congress expressly relied on both Article I, § 8 and § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for the statute. The constitutional question was whether Congress had power to create this federal civil remedy for gender-motivated violence.

Issue

Whether Congress had constitutional authority to enact 42 U.S.C. § 13981's federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence under either the Commerce Clause or § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the case asked whether Congress could regulate gender-motivated violent crime as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce or as remedial legislation enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate channels of interstate commerce, instrumentalities of interstate commerce or persons or things in interstate commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce; but the Court rejects regulation of noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregated effect on interstate commerce. Under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may enact appropriate remedial legislation to enforce the Amendment against state action, but the power is limited to corrective legislation and does not extend to a remedy directed at purely private individuals; prophylactic legislation must exhibit congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates a federal civil cause of action for any victim of a bias-motivated street assault, allowing damages against the assailant even when the attack occurs entirely within one state. In hearings, Congress finds that such assaults reduce employee attendance, increase medical costs, and discourage travel to downtown business districts in cities like Cleveland and Phoenix.

What is the strongest argument that the statute exceeds Congress's commerce power?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct solely by reasoning that, in the aggregate, it affects interstate commerce. The regulated conduct here is a local violent assault, not economic activity, and the asserted links to commerce—productivity, costs, and travel—mirror the attenuated reasoning the Court rejected.