United States v. Morrison

Definition

United States v. Morrison was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2000 that evaluated the limits of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The case involved a woman who sued her assailant under VAWA, and the Court ultimately ruled that Congress could not regulate non-economic, violent criminal conduct based solely on its effects on interstate commerce, marking a significant limitation on federal authority.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in United States v. Morrison, stating that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by enacting VAWA's civil remedy provision.
2. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, emphasized that gender-motivated crimes of violence are not economic activity and thus not subject to federal regulation.
3. The case reaffirmed the principle that states have the primary responsibility for regulating intrastate crime and protecting the health and welfare of their citizens.
4. This decision marked a shift towards a narrower interpretation of the Commerce Clause, impacting future legislation aimed at addressing non-economic issues.
5. United States v. Morrison has been cited in subsequent cases to argue against federal overreach into areas traditionally managed by state law.

Review Questions

• What were the main legal arguments presented in United States v. Morrison regarding the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause?
  • In United States v. Morrison, the main legal arguments centered around whether Congress had the authority to create a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence under the Commerce Clause. The Court determined that non-economic violent crimes did not substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore fell outside Congress's regulatory power. The justices highlighted that allowing such federal regulation would set a precedent for unchecked congressional power over local matters.
• How did the ruling in United States v. Morrison impact the interpretation of the Violence Against Women Act and future legislation?
  • The ruling in United States v. Morrison had a significant impact on the Violence Against Women Act by striking down its civil remedy provision as unconstitutional. This decision curtailed Congress's ability to legislate on issues of gender-based violence through interstate commerce authority. As a result, lawmakers had to reconsider how they approached future legislation related to domestic violence and similar matters, often focusing on state laws and resources instead of relying solely on federal intervention.
• Evaluate the implications of United States v. Morrison on federalism and the balance of power between state and federal governments.
  • United States v. Morrison underscored important implications for federalism by reinforcing state sovereignty over issues traditionally managed at the state level, like criminal law and domestic violence. The decision clarified that while Congress holds significant powers under the Commerce Clause, those powers have limits when it comes to non-economic activities. This ruling contributed to ongoing debates about the balance of power between state and federal governments, emphasizing that states should play a crucial role in addressing local issues without excessive federal interference.

Related terms

Commerce Clause: A clause in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, which has been interpreted in various ways throughout American history.

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA): A federal law passed in 1994 aimed at improving criminal justice responses to domestic violence and sexual assault, which was challenged in this case.

Federalism: A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units, like states, influencing how laws are enacted and enforced.