U.S.

Rape Victims' Rights Argued

By CBSNews.com staff CBSNews.com staff

January 11, 2000 / 12:29 PM EST / CBS

Supreme Court justices expressed doubts Tuesday 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.

Senator Joseph Biden, D-Del., who wrote Violence Against Women Act that made Christy Brzonkala's suit possible, argued on the CBS News Early Show that state judges and juries aren't always the answer.

"What this does is empower women who have been neglected by the states - in terms of states pursuing their attackers - and empowers them to go into a federal court and say, 'My state court is not going to pay attention to me, and if I can prove you've done it to me, I can get civil damages against you,'" Biden said.

Biden said there should be no fear of a crush of similar cases if the Supreme Court upholds this one. In the years since the law was passed, "the states have become sensitized and states are taking off their books a lot of the laws that were discriminatory."

On the same program, William "Chip" Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, who opposes the law, said this case is not ultimately about the rights of rape victims; it's about the federal government abusing its authority over the states.

"If this case were simply about stopping violence against women, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court today," he said.

"The Supreme Court is hearing this case because it goes to the heart of the constitutional structure of our government," Mellor added. "The court will decide today whether or not the Congress operates under enumerated and, therefore, limited powers; or whether it has authority to basically regulate any activity it sees fit."

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 Tuesday's case could follow the same pattern when ecided 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 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 lets 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 this case.

What happens if the court again finds that a federal law stretches the constitution and abuses states' rights?

"Rape victims will still have recourse," said Biden. "Although they may roll that back eventually. But the point is, they will have no recourse at the federal level on a civil rights cause of action to get civil damages."

Said Mellor: "Congress does not have the authority to give itself blanket authority to address whatever problem it wants to. It has to play by rules."

The cases, now combined as one, are U.S. vs. Morrison, 99-5, and Brzonkala vs. Morrison, 99-29.