U.S. V. Morrison (2000) Case Brief (Essay Sample)

Case brief
Insert name:
Institutional affiliation:
Due date:
Case: United States v. Morrison
Cite: 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
Vote: 5-4
Opinion: Rehnquist
Facts of the case:
While Christy Brzonkala enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech) in 1994, she alleged that James Crawford and Antonio Morrison both varsity football players and students at Virginia Tech raped her.
Brzonkala in 1995 filed a petition against Crawford and Morrison based on the Virginia Tech’s Sexual Assault Policy. It was found that Morrison was guilty of committing sexual assault, and he was given immediate suspension for two semesters. However, Crawford did not receive any punishment.
A second hearing also found that Morrison was guilty, though Morrison’s punishment was abandoned after an appeal was made to the university’s administrative system. The punishment was found to be excessive.
Finally, Brzonkala abandoned her studies at the university. She took a new turn by suing Virginia Tech, Crawford and Morrison at the federal district court. She claimed that Crawford and Morrison’s attack infringed 42 USC section 13981 part of the Violence against Women Act of 1994 that offers a federal civil remedy for those who are victimized under gender-motivated violence.
Crawford and Morrison appealed to dismiss Brzonkala’s case arguing that the section 13981 of the civil remedy was unlawful, and, therefore, unconstitutional. The complaint was dismissed as the district court identified that the congress had not powers to enact section 13981 under either the fourteenth amendment or the commerce clause that congress has recognized as the basis of the federal authority for it. Finally, the court of appeal affirmed the complained.
Statue:
Fourteenth amendment
Commerce clause
Legal question:
Does congress own the authority to make the Violence against Women Act of 1994 under either fourteenth amendment or the commerce clause?
Constitutional provision:
42 U.S.C. 1398
Reasoning:
Five votes supported Morrison’s position while four votes were against him. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered a 5-4 opinion in which the U.S Supreme Court ruled that congress had no powers to enact a statute under the fourteenth amendment or commerce clause because the statute did not control any activity which had effect on the interstate commerce nor did it rectify risk caused by the state.
Chief justice failed to offer Brzonkala a remedy for the action of Morrison. Though, under the Virginia federal system, remedy has to be offered by the commonwealth of Virginia, but not by United States.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented by contending that the majority of opinion demonstrates the difficulty of getting a viable judicial commerce clause.
Furthermore, Justice David H. Souter also dissented by arguing that the Violence against Women Act contained a lot of information gathered by congress, and, therefore, demonstrating the impacts of violence against women under interstate commerce.
The U.S Supreme court derived a decision that the congress had not power under either the 14th amendment of the American constitution or the interstate commerce clause, to create the statute.
The Supreme Court identified that the congress lacked authority to make Violence against Women Act under 14th amendment.
The Supr...