This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Section 13981 provides a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence. P's claimed an alleged rape by two football players at VPI. P filed a complaint under the VPI disciplinary system, and only one of the accused was punished, and the one who was punished had that punishment suspended. P dropped out of school and sued both men as well as VPI in federal district court under the statute. The District Court dismissed P's Title IX and then held that P’s complaint stated a claim against the football players under § 13981, but dismissed the complaint because it concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the section under either the Commerce Clause or § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, reinstating P's § 13981 claim and her Title IX hostile environment claim. The en banc court then issued an opinion affirming the District Court's conclusion that P stated a claim under § 13981 because her complaint alleged a crime of violence and the allegations of Morrison's crude and derogatory statements regarding his treatment of women sufficiently indicated that his crime was motivated by gender animus. The court, by a divided vote, affirmed the District Court's conclusion that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact § 13981's civil remedy. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.