United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the Commerce Clause. The Court held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the Commerce Clause. The Court held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. The case arose from a challenge to a provision of the Violence Against Women Act that provided victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that the Commerce Clause only gave Congress the power to regulate activities that were directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences. Rehnquist also held that the Equal Protection Clause did not authorize the law because that clause only applies to acts by states, and not to acts by private individuals. In his dissent, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the majority was reviving an old and discredited interpretation of the Commerce Clause. (en)
  • United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a US Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. The case arose from a challenge to a provision of the Violence Against Women Act that provided victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that the Commerce Clause gave Congress only the power to regulate activities that were directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences. Rehnquist also held that the Equal Protection Clause did not authorize the law because that clause applies only to acts by states, not to acts by private individuals. In his dissent, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the majority was reviving an old and discredited interpretation of the Commerce Clause. (en)
dbo:wikiPageEditLink
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageExtracted
  • 2019-10-24 02:40:56Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-14 15:41:03Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-14 15:41:23Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-18 16:44:03Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-18 16:45:09Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-12 01:46:49Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-04 17:42:10Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-11 19:58:51Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-11 22:34:28Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageHistoryLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 324875 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 23286 (xsd:integer)
  • 23302 (xsd:integer)
  • 23409 (xsd:integer)
  • 23508 (xsd:integer)
  • 23559 (xsd:integer)
  • 23759 (xsd:integer)
  • 23774 (xsd:integer)
  • 23835 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageModified
  • 2019-10-24 02:40:48Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-14 15:40:56Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-14 15:41:18Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-18 16:43:56Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-10-18 16:45:05Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-12 01:46:45Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-04 17:42:05Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-11 19:58:46Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-11 22:34:24Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageOutDegree
  • 61 (xsd:integer)
  • 62 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 922753190 (xsd:integer)
  • 983498023 (xsd:integer)
  • 983498076 (xsd:integer)
  • 984171913 (xsd:integer)
  • 984172088 (xsd:integer)
  • 999805728 (xsd:integer)
  • 1015973180 (xsd:integer)
  • 1017264667 (xsd:integer)
  • 1017285756 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the Commerce Clause. The Court held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. (en)
  • United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a US Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. (en)
rdfs:label
  • United States v. Morrison (en)
owl:sameAs
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • United States v. Antonio J. Morrison et al. and Christy Brzonkala v. Antonio J. Morrison et al. (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is rdfs:seeAlso of
is foaf:primaryTopic of