holding Commerce Clause did not provide Congress with the authority to enact the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act because "[g]ender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity" that substantially affects interstate commerce and the statute did not contain a "jurisdictional element establishing that the federal cause of action is in pursuance of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce."
How later courts described this case
- holding Commerce Clause did not provide Congress with the authority to enact the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act because "[g]ender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity" that substantially affects interstate commerce and the statute did not contain a "jurisdictional element establishing that the federal cause of action is in pursuance of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce."
- stating that "[w]e accordingly have no hesitation in saying that it would take more than the naked dicta contained in Justice Clark's opinion [in Guest], when added to Justice Brennan's opinion [in Guest], to cast any doubt upon the enduring vitality of the Civil Rights Cases and Harris," and that Carter's reference to the Guest opinions "is of course entirely dicta, and in any event cannot rise above its source"
- holding that the civil remedies in 42 U.S.C. § 13981 were beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause because, inter alia, "[l]ike the Gun-Free School Zones Act at issue in Lopez, § 13981 contains no jurisdictional element establishing that the federal cause of action is in pursuance of Congress'[s] power to regulate interstate commerce"
- explaining that the "three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power" include "the use of the channels of interstate commerce," "the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce," and "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce" (quotation added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Robert Allen Waucaush v. United States, 380 F.3d 251 (2004)
Before Jones and Morrison, such a speculative chain of causation was easily distinguishable from the facts in our case, in which the defendants were alleged actually to have murdered several individuals on the city streets (and thereby preventing the victims from working, shopping, or doing anything else commercial).
Distinguished by United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222 (2003)
In Daugherty, we stated "[b]oth [Morrison and Jones], however, are distinguishable from the present case, because a plain jurisdictional element exists in § 922(g), and there is stipulated evidence showing that the gun traveled in interstate commerce.
The opinion
Justice Thomas,
concurring.
The majority opinion correetly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a “substantial effects” test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.