Supreme Court Rejects Civil Rights Remedy of the Violence Against Women Act
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday
rejected in a 5-4 ruling the civil rights section
of the 1994 federal Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA), preventing victims of rape
from suing their attackers in federal court.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who
authored the majority opinion, declared that
VAWA wrongly stepped on states' authority
to enforce the Constitution's equal-protection
provision, affirming the appeals court's
decision that victims of such violent,
gender-based crimes should not be permitted
to sue for damages in federal civil cases.
Rehnquist wrote "Petitioners' assertion that
there is pervasive bias in various state justice
systems against victims of gender-motivated
violence is supported by a voluminous
congressional record. However, the
Fourteenth Amendment places limitations on
the manner in which Congress may attack
Justice Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion, in
which Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg joined.
Last Spring, in Brzonkala v. Morrison, the
4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
against Christy Brzonkala, who brought civil
charges against Antonio J. Morrison and
James Landale for rapes that occurred in
1994 in a dormitory at the Virginia
This defeat is a major setback for protecting
women against violence. Until now, the Civil
Rights Remedy of the Violence Against
Women Act allowed victims to collect for
medical expenses and lost wages in civil suits.
The Supreme Court decision against this
provision leaves women with no federal civil
legal remedy for damages they suffer because
of violent attacks.
Media Resources: The Nando Times - 15 May 2000, U.S. v. Morrison et
10/21/2014 Afghanistan's New First Lady Advances Women's Issues - Just a few days after moving to the presidential palace, Afghanistan's new First Lady Rula Ghani said that she hopes to encourage greater respect for women.
Rula Ghani already broke tradition by participating in her husband, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai's, campaign for President. . . .
10/21/2014 Hulu Silences Rape Survivor Speaking Out Against Anti-Abortion Amendment 67 in Colorado - Hulu, an online, ad-supported streaming service, has refused to run an advertisement from the "No on 67" campaign in Colorado, citing the company's policy regarding "controversial" political positions on issues like abortion.
In a letter to the CEO of Hulu, dated October 10, the Vote No on 67 Campaign, which is supported by the Feminist Majority Foundation, asked the company to reconsider its unwillingness to air a 35-second spot featuring a rape survivor's testimony about the far-reaching impact of Colorado's proposed Amendment 67. . . .