U.S.+v+Morrison

**__U.S. v Morrison__**
In 1994 a Virginia Tech student, Christy Brzonkala, accused Antonio Morrison and James Crawford raped her. Antonio Morrison and James Crawford were on the Virginia Tech football team at the time. in, 1995 Chrsty filed a complaint against Antonio and James under the Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. Antonio Morrison was found guilty of the charged and immediately suspended for two semesters from Virginia Tech. James was not found guilty. Another hearing found Morrison guilty again.

In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss Brzonkala's suit on the ground that section 13981's civil remedy was unconstitutional. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court found that that Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for it. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Brzonkala was allegedly raped by the defendants. She sued the defendants in federal court under 42 U.S.C. 13981. The defendants responded by claiming that the statute was unconstitional. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint. Brzonkala appealed. The fourth Circuit affirmed en banc, and Brzonkala appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress harm caused by the state. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United States." Dissenting, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the majority opinion "illustrates the difficulty of finding a workable judicial Commerce Clause touchstone." Additionally, Justice David H. Souter, dissenting, noted that VAWA contained a "mountain of data assembled by Congress...showing the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce." Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources nof federal authority for it. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed.



=References= [|U.S. v Morrison]1 [|U.S. v Morrison]2 [|U.S. v Morrison]3 [|U.S. v Morrison]4