Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002, Page 43
addresses the trafficking of women and children. The VAWO ―is leading efforts nationally
and abroad to intervene in and prosecute crimes of trafficking in women and children ...
.‖10 Thus, the 2000 Act is divided into two Acts: the Violence Against Women Act of 2000
(―VAWA 2000‖) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (―TVPA 2000‖).
A. Federal Civil Remedy Struck Since VAWA 1994
VAWA 1994 created a federal civil remedy for women who were victims of physical
violence.11 A significant provision allowed women to sue their abusers for monetary
damages.12 Today, the federal civil remedy is no longer available. In my 1998 article in the
Cultic Studies Journal, I had described a case that was winding its way through the federal
courts called Brzonkala v. Va. Polytechnic &State University.13 In that case, a college
student brought a federal civil lawsuit against male students who had raped her in her
dormitory room. The case was eventually heard by the United States Supreme Court, which
struck down, in a sharply divided 5-4 decision, the section of VAWA 1994 that provided civil
remedies for women who bring suit against their attackers.14 The Court held that Congress
overstepped its power when it gave women the right to sue their attackers.15
Congress must base its legislative enactments upon particular clauses or amendments to
the Federal Constitution.16 For the VAWA 1994, Congress had drafted the legislation, and
this particular provision, based upon the right of Congress to regulate activity among states
when that activity affects interstate commerce as this right is conferred under the
Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution.17 Unfortunately, the Supreme Court held, in
part, that the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution did not provide Congress with
authority to enact the civil remedy provision of the VAWA.18 The majority held that the
provision at issue19 failed to regulate activity that substantially affected interstate
commerce, 20 and, furthermore, that ―[g]ender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any
sense of the phrase, economic activity.‖21 Additionally, the Court held that the provision at
issue ―contains no jurisdictional element establishing that federal cause of action is in
pursuance of Congress‘ power to regulate interstate commerce.‖22
The attorney from NOW Legal Defense Fund, who represented the plaintiff in the case, said
that the Act‘s civil remedy ―‗gave women a way to take matters in their own hands.‘‖23 In
response to the decision, the attorney was particularly concerned with the Court‘s ―rejection
of Congress‘s findings about the harmful effects that rape and domestic violence have on
employment and other interstate commerce.‖24
In response to the court decision, Attorney General Janet Reno issued a news release
stating that she was:
deeply disappointed by the Court‘s ruling, but that decision does not affect
the other important aspects of VAWA, including our responsibility to
implement the criminal provisions of VAWA. Nor does it affect Congress‘
authority to re-authorize and improve VAWA. I urge Congress take prompt
action to get [the VAWA 2000] passed to end violence against women.25
B. New Bill Pending
Currently, there is a Congressional bill pending that seeks to restore the Federal civil
remedy for violent crimes that are gender-motivated.26 In order to pass constitutional
muster, the bill identifies three possible triggering events for this kind of lawsuit. One is
that the abuser or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses a facility or
instrumentality of such, or the abuser employs a weapon or drug that has traveled in
interstate or foreign commerce. Another triggering event is that the offense interferes with
commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged. The third event is
where the offense was committed with intent to interfere with the victim‘s commercial or
other economic activity.27
addresses the trafficking of women and children. The VAWO ―is leading efforts nationally
and abroad to intervene in and prosecute crimes of trafficking in women and children ...
.‖10 Thus, the 2000 Act is divided into two Acts: the Violence Against Women Act of 2000
(―VAWA 2000‖) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (―TVPA 2000‖).
A. Federal Civil Remedy Struck Since VAWA 1994
VAWA 1994 created a federal civil remedy for women who were victims of physical
violence.11 A significant provision allowed women to sue their abusers for monetary
damages.12 Today, the federal civil remedy is no longer available. In my 1998 article in the
Cultic Studies Journal, I had described a case that was winding its way through the federal
courts called Brzonkala v. Va. Polytechnic &State University.13 In that case, a college
student brought a federal civil lawsuit against male students who had raped her in her
dormitory room. The case was eventually heard by the United States Supreme Court, which
struck down, in a sharply divided 5-4 decision, the section of VAWA 1994 that provided civil
remedies for women who bring suit against their attackers.14 The Court held that Congress
overstepped its power when it gave women the right to sue their attackers.15
Congress must base its legislative enactments upon particular clauses or amendments to
the Federal Constitution.16 For the VAWA 1994, Congress had drafted the legislation, and
this particular provision, based upon the right of Congress to regulate activity among states
when that activity affects interstate commerce as this right is conferred under the
Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution.17 Unfortunately, the Supreme Court held, in
part, that the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution did not provide Congress with
authority to enact the civil remedy provision of the VAWA.18 The majority held that the
provision at issue19 failed to regulate activity that substantially affected interstate
commerce, 20 and, furthermore, that ―[g]ender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any
sense of the phrase, economic activity.‖21 Additionally, the Court held that the provision at
issue ―contains no jurisdictional element establishing that federal cause of action is in
pursuance of Congress‘ power to regulate interstate commerce.‖22
The attorney from NOW Legal Defense Fund, who represented the plaintiff in the case, said
that the Act‘s civil remedy ―‗gave women a way to take matters in their own hands.‘‖23 In
response to the decision, the attorney was particularly concerned with the Court‘s ―rejection
of Congress‘s findings about the harmful effects that rape and domestic violence have on
employment and other interstate commerce.‖24
In response to the court decision, Attorney General Janet Reno issued a news release
stating that she was:
deeply disappointed by the Court‘s ruling, but that decision does not affect
the other important aspects of VAWA, including our responsibility to
implement the criminal provisions of VAWA. Nor does it affect Congress‘
authority to re-authorize and improve VAWA. I urge Congress take prompt
action to get [the VAWA 2000] passed to end violence against women.25
B. New Bill Pending
Currently, there is a Congressional bill pending that seeks to restore the Federal civil
remedy for violent crimes that are gender-motivated.26 In order to pass constitutional
muster, the bill identifies three possible triggering events for this kind of lawsuit. One is
that the abuser or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses a facility or
instrumentality of such, or the abuser employs a weapon or drug that has traveled in
interstate or foreign commerce. Another triggering event is that the offense interferes with
commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged. The third event is
where the offense was committed with intent to interfere with the victim‘s commercial or
other economic activity.27
