University groups and community organizations reacted in frustration to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rejected a federal measure giving victims of rape and sexual violence the right to sue their attackers.
Monday’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision said that rape victims of “gender-motivated violence” cannot sue their attackers under the U.S. Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The ruling also brought into question a federal “hate crime” bill regarding sexual orientation.
The justices ruled the measure unconstitutional because only the state government, not the federal government, has the right to regulate a private act, such as rape.
“I think people should be allowed to sue anyone they want,” said Gabrielle Hendel, the co-director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Alliance and a senior psychology and women’s studies major. “Rape is so under-reported and discredited by the legal system, the judiciary system and the police that often times suing someone is the last option for personal reconciliation.”
Because of this decision “women will be less likely to report violent crimes in the first place, and I think that is tragic,” she said.
Associate dean and professor at the School of Law Jim O’Fallon said the decision simply means that the particular federal rights remedy on top of state rules can’t be enforced.
“The court of appeals, [which] has in its jurisdiction Virginia Tech, struck it down and provided an opportunity for the court to look at it,” O’Fallon said.
The justices barred a federal lawsuit filed by former Virginia Polytechnic Institute student Christy Brzonkala against two football players she said raped her as a freshman in a dormitory room. Student athletes Antonio Morrison and James Crawford were accused of assaulting Brzonkala in September of 1994.
“[The decision] is not something we support because the way we see it, it is one less way for offenders to be held accountable,” said Janet Fiskio, a community educator with Sexual Assault Support Services. “We want survivors to know that there are many other ways they can seek to hold offenders accountable.”
A legal advocacy program is available through SASS to help people who have been victims of violence.
“The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court. “If Congress may regulate gender-motivated violence, it would be able to regulate murder or any other type of violence.”
Attorney Michael Rosman, who argued the case on behalf of the two men sued by Bronkala called the ruling “a very good day in the Constitution for the rule of law.” He said that people who allege they are victims of gender-based violence “have perfectly good remedies in state courts.”
However, Kathy Rodgers of the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented Brzonkala, said this is a severe blow for women’s rights because of the effect it will have on Congress.
“Congress identified a kind of gender discrimination,” Rodgers said. “Congress is trying to address that with a creative, specific solution and the court says, ‘No, you can’t do that.”
Monday’s decision in United States vs. Morrison followed the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in the United States vs. Lopez case that struck down as unconstitutional a law that made it a federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The justices said gun possession was not linked to interstate commerce and the law usurped state authority over such crimes.
O’Fallon said that this was the first time in 50 years the court had struck down a federal law on the grounds that it exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce clause.
As for the United States vs. Morrison decision, President Clinton said he was “deeply disappointed” by the court’s decision that victims may no longer sue their assailants in federal court. He signed the bill into law as part of the 1994’s crime control measures.
The court outcome on Monday was a split decision.
Rehnquist, along with Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas supported the states’ rights and limiting federal power. The dissenting were Justices David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.