By Laurie Asseo, Associated Press, 01/11/00
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices expressed doubts today about whether Congress had the authority to enact a law allowing rape victims to sue their attackers in federal court.
"Your approach ... would justify a federal remedy for alimony or child support," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who asked the court to reinstate a key provision of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.
Julie Goldscheid, representing a former Virginia Tech student who wants to sue two football players she says raped her, argued along with Waxman that the law is needed to combat gender-based violence -- "one of the most persistent barriers to women's equality and full participation in the economy."
Such violence reduces national productivity and restricts women's choices in jobs and travel, Goldscheid said.
But Justice Antonin Scalia said all types of crime could have similar effects.
Goldscheid's logic "would allow general federal criminal laws on all subjects because all crime affects interstate commerce," Scalia said.
Michael E. Rosman, representing the two former football players, said the law encroaches on traditional state powers and does not come under Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The justices have trimmed the federal government's power in relation to the states in a series of recent 5-4 decisions. It seemed likely that today's case could follow the same pattern when decided sometime by July.
Waxman said Congress found that "archaic prejudices and improper stereotypes" about women were affecting the outcome of cases in state courts.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, formerly a pioneering women's rights advocate, suggested that the Violence Against Women Act could be seen as an "alternative remedy."
Congress could be saying, "We aren't taking over the states' domain. We are just complementing what the states do," Ginsburg said. "Why isn't that satisfactory?"
Thirty-six states are siding with Christy Brzonkala, the former Virginia Tech student, and asking the court to reinstate the federal law.
The court in 1995 threw out the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, which made it a crime to possess a gun near a school. The justices said the law was insufficiently linked to interstate commerce and usurped states' authority over such crimes.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied heavily on that ruling when it threw out Brzonkala's lawsuit against the two football players. The appeals court said Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and assure all citizens of equal protection did not authorize it to enact the portion of the Violence Against Women Act that let rape victims sue their attackers.
Brzonkala, who has allowed use of her name, became the first person to sue under the federal law in 1995 when she sued Antonio Morrison and James Crawford. She alleged the two athletes raped her in a dormitory room.
Brzonkala did not report the rapes for several months, and the men were never charged with a crime. She said she became depressed after the alleged attack and ultimately withdrew from school.
Now 23, Brzonkala works at a restaurant. She is pursuing a separate lawsuit against Virginia Tech, which she says protected the two men because they were athletes.
Brzonkala generally has avoided speaking about the case in public. But at a news conference last week, she said, "Rape is like having your soul torn out ... Rape is a brutal form of discrimination -- women are raped because they are women."
The Violence Against Women Act also has criminal provisions, but those are not at issue in today's case.
The cases are U.S. vs. Morrison, 99-5, and Brzonkala vs. Morrison, 99-29.
