Statements (62)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
November 2, 2000
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analyzed in constitutional law courses.
Implications for future federal legislation. Examined the scope of Congress's power. Implications for state and federal relations. Relevant in discussions of women's rights. Criticized for limiting protections against gender violence. |
| gptkbp:case_debate |
Debated in legal and political circles.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
gptkb:United_States_v._Morrison
Documented in legal databases. No. 99-5 Available in legal archives. Struck down provisions of the VAWA as unconstitutional. Challenged in lower courts before reaching Supreme Court. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Partially invalidated federal law Majority opinion emphasized state sovereignty. Invalidated provisions allowing federal civil suits. Affected future gender violence legislation. Influenced future legislation on gender violence. Influenced public policy on gender issues. Led to state-level reforms. |
| gptkbp:case_reactions |
Mixed reactions from legal scholars.
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Key case in federalism and gender rights.
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil rights case
|
| gptkbp:court |
Rehnquist Court.
|
| gptkbp:date |
November 2000
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
January 12, 2001 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Dissent argued for broader interpretation of federal power. |
| gptkbp:docket_number |
99-5
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
January 2001
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
533 U. S. 194
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
gptkb:533_U._S._194
Cited in discussions of state rights. |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Supreme Court's role in reviewing federal laws.
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:law_applied |
Commerce Clause
|
| gptkbp:legacy |
Legacy in the context of women's rights advocacy.
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Constitutional interpretation
Context of 1990s gender rights movements. |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Set precedent for future cases regarding state vs. federal power.
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Violence_Against_Women_Act
Federal government overstepped its authority. |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Federalism principles.
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Violence_Against_Women_Act_of_1994
|
| gptkbp:material |
Originated from a case involving a woman assaulted.
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Lopez_v._United_States
Federalism Limits on federal power |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
|
| gptkbp:publications |
Discussed in law journals.
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:United_States_v._Lopez
Followed by further legal challenges. |
| gptkbp:related_to |
Gender-based violence
|
| gptkbp:significance |
gptkb:Constitution
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Saucier_v._Katz
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
7
|