Why did the U.S. Supreme Court rule against part of the Violence Against Women Act in U.S. v. Morrison?

In the 2000 case U.S. v. Morrison, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the civil rights remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was unconstitutional in a 5–4 decision.1

The Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact this federal civil remedy—which allowed victims of gender-motivated violence to sue in federal court—under two primary constitutional grounds:

• Commerce Clause: The Court determined that gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense, economic activity. Consequently, Congress could not regulate such conduct under the commerce clause, as the activity did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.12
• Fourteenth Amendment: The Court also ruled that the provision exceeded congressional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying equal protection of the laws but does not grant Congress the power to regulate the conduct of private individuals.1

By striking down this provision, the Court affirmed the principle of federalism, maintaining that certain areas of criminal and civil law remain within the jurisdiction of individual states rather than the federal government.12