United States v. Morrison
United States Supreme Court
529 U.S. 598, 120 S. Ct. 1740, 146 L. Ed. 2D 658 (2000)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which created a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence, allowing such victims to assert civil suits for damages independent of any criminal prosecutions. The same year, Christy Brzonkala (plaintiff), a freshman at Virginia Tech University (defendant), was allegedly assaulted and raped by football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford (defendants). Morrison was temporarily suspended from school, but his punishment was subsequently set aside. Brzonkala filed a civil suit against Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech University under VAWA in federal district court. Morrison argued that VAWA’s civil-remedy provision was unconstitutional because Congress lacked authority to enact a civil remedy for gender-based violence. The United States government intervened to defend the provision’s constitutionality. Alongside Brzonkala, the government argued that Congress had authority to enact the civil-remedy provision under either the Commerce Clause or § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court rejected those arguments and deemed the civil-remedy provision unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
Dissent (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,006 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,006 law school casebooks.


