Justices reject law that let rape victims sue in federal court
by Laurie Asseo
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Rape victims cannot sue their attackers
in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, saying it is up to
the states — not Congress — to give such help to women victimized
by violence.
The 5-4 ruling threw out a key provision of the 1994 Violence Against
Women Act and continued the court's trend of expanding states' rights
at the expense of the federal government.
"The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national
and what is truly local,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for
the court.
The justices barred a federal lawsuit by former Virginia Tech student
Christy Brzonkala against two football players she says raped her in a
dormitory room.
Brzonkala "alleges that she was the victim of a brutal assault,''
Rehnquist said. "If the allegations here are true, no civilized system
of justice could fail to provide her a remedy - But under our federal
system that remedy must be provided by the commonwealth of Virginia, and
not by the United States.''
Kathy Rodgers of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, which
represented Brzonkala, said, "I consider this to be a severe blow for
women's rights because of the chilling 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.'''
Attorney Michael E. Rosman, who argued the case on behalf of the
two men sued by Brzonkala, called the ruling "a very good day for the
Constitution and the rule of law.'' People who allege they are victims
of gender-based violence "have perfectly good remedies in state court,''
he said.
The decision affirmed a federal appeals court decision that threw
out Brzonkala's lawsuit against student athletes Antonio Morrison and
James Crawford. Brzonkala has allowed her name to be disclosed.
"Gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the
phrase, economic activity,'' Rehnquist said. The justices rejected arguments
by Brzonkala's lawyer and the Clinton administration that the law was
needed because states are not doing enough to protect rape victims, and
because gender-based violence restricts women's choices in jobs and travel.
That argument "would allow Congress to regulate any crime as long
as the nationwide, aggregated impact of that crime has substantial effects
on employment, production, transit or consumption,'' Rehnquist said. "Indeed,
if Congress may regulate gender-motivated violence, it would be able to
regulate murder or any other type of violence.''
The case is a follow-up to the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling 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 sufficiently linked to interstate commerce and that the law usurped
state authority over such crimes.
"I don't know what's next in line,'' Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who
sponsored the Violence Against Women Act, said yesterday. "The court really
went off here in a way that I find extremely troublesome.''
|
