THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, July 30, 1996 TAG: 9607300263
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY LAURENCE HAMMACK, LANDMARK NEWS SERVICE
DATELINE: ROANOKE LENGTH: 171 lines
A law that allows victims of rape and domestic violence to sue in federal court is unconstitutional, a judge has ruled in dismissing a lawsuit that accused two Virginia Tech football players of rape.
Declaring the Violence Against Women Act ``an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' power,'' Chief U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser wrote in a 41-page opinion that lawmakers overstepped their authority when they passed the law. The 1994 law says gender-motivated crimes are civil rights violations and allows victims to sue their attackers for damages.
Christy Brzonkala, a former Tech student who claims she was raped by football players Tony Morrison and James Crawford in a dormitory room, drew national publicity as one of the first plaintiffs to sue under the law. Morrison is a graduate of Indian River High School in Chesapeake.
David Paxton, a Roanoke attorney who represents Morrison, said in response to the ruling, ``It's sort of like a 25-yard gain - it's not a touchdown but it's a whole lot better than being sacked.''
Brzonkala's lawyer, Eileen Wagner, said she would appeal Kiser's ruling and proceed with lawsuits filed last week in state court. Legal observers said a final ruling on the Violence Against Women Act is still a long way off.
Kiser's decision conflicts with a June ruling in the only other known case filed under the Violence Against Women Act. A U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn., upheld the law and allowed a woman to proceed with a suit against her estranged multimillionaire husband - who she claims beat and humiliated her.
Paxton had argued that while the Violence Against Women Act was passed with good intentions, it improperly gave federal courts jurisdiction over matters that belong in the state courts.
Kiser agreed, writing: ``Without a doubt violence against women is a pervasive and troublesome aspect of American life which needs thoughtful attention. But Congress is not invested with the authority to cure all the ills of mankind.''
Kiser based his ruling in large part on a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a federal law that made it illegal to possess a firearm in a school zone. Both that law and the Violence Against Women Act, Kiser wrote, dealt with state issues that Congress improperly sought to regulate.
``This is another example of Congress sticking its nose into this, that and the other thing - places where it clearly has no constitutional authority to exercise its power,'' said Michael Greve, executive director of the Center for Individual Rights in Washington. Greve assisted Paxton in representing Morrison.
Supporters of the Violence Against Women Act predicted it would be upheld on appeal, noting the federal judge's ruling in Connecticut.
``We think (the Connecticut decision) was a very well-reasoned opinion,'' said Martha Davis, legal director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. ``We don't have any reason to believe that Judge Kiser's view of this is going to carry the day in the end.''
In the nearly two years since Brzonkala claimed she was raped by Morrison and Crawford, legal arguments in the case have had little to do with what actually happened in the dorm room the night of Sept. 22, 1994.
Instead, Kiser has considered the role Congress played in passing the Violence Against Women Act.
The issue that Kiser decided boiled down to two points: Could Brzonkala reasonably claim that her attack was motivated by gender - a hate crime against women - and if so, was the law she based her allegations on constitutional?
On the first question, Kiser ruled that Morrison's alleged actions showed ``gender animus more than in many, if not most, situations of rape.''
The judge said two statements that Morrison is accused of making - telling Brzonkala after the rape that she ``better not have any f------ diseases,'' and later boasting that he enjoyed having sex with drunken women - indicate a ``disrespect for women in general.''
But on the second and overriding issue, Kiser struck down the law that Brzonkala would have used to claim she was the victim of a hate crime. For the Violence Against Woman Act to pass constitutional muster, Congress must have based it either on the commerce clause or the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment.
Kiser ruled that it was based on neither.
Under the commerce clause argument, Brzonkala's lawyers and the U.S. Justice Department argued that rape and domestic abuse affect interstate commerce in a number of ways. Women avoid working in certain locations and at certain hours because of fear of crime; fear of violence might deter them from traveling across state lines on business; and women frequently leave their jobs after being raped or sexually abused.
But Kiser ruled that violence against women does not have a significant enough effect on interstate commerce to bring it under the provisions of the commerce clause. Taking Brzonkala's argument to an extreme, he said, even insomnia could be argued to have an effect on interstate commerce and thus would fall under the purview of Congress.
Kiser was no more impressed with a second argument advanced by Brzonkala's attorneys: That Congress acted under the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment, passing the Violence Against Women Act to make up for the failure of state courts to protect victims of gender-motivated crime.
Under that argument, passage of the act was similar to what happened during the Civil Rights Movement when state courts in the South failed to protect the rights of victims of racial discrimination, forcing Congress and the federal courts to get involved.
But for that argument to succeed, Kiser wrote, Brzonkala would have to prove that she was harmed by the actions of the state - something that had not been shown.
In May, Kiser dismissed Tech as a defendant in the lawsuit. Brzonkala had accused the university of acting with an ``anti-female'' bias and of giving the football players preferential treatment during two campus hearings last summer.
Brzonkala never sought criminal charges, but made a complaint through Tech's internal justice system in the spring of 1995. No action was taken against Crawford, but Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault. He was granted a second hearing last summer and was found guilty of the lesser offense of using abusive language.
Both times, Morrison was suspended for two semesters, a punishment upheld by the school's appeals officer after the first hearing. But after the second hearing, Tech's provost overturned his punishment, saying it was too harsh for the offense.
Joseph Painter, a Blacksburg attorney who represents Crawford, argued that his client has already been cleared in two campus judicial hearings and by a grand jury in Montgomery County that declined to bring charges after hearing the results of a state police investigation into Brzonkala's allegations. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo
Christy Brzonkala
THE RULING: A lawsuit accused two Virginia Tech football players
of raping Christy Brzonkala, left. A judge in Roanoke dismissed the
suit, saying the federal law on which the suit is based - the
Violence Against Women Act - is unconstitutional. The act allows
victims of rape and domestic violence to sue their attackers in
federal court.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Brzonkala's lawyer says she will appeal,and
proceed with lawsuits in state court.
Graphic
THE BRZONKALA CASE AT A GLANCE
Sept. 22, 1994: According to Christy Brzonkala, Virginia Tech
football players Tony Morrison and James Crawford raped her in their
dorm room.
January 1995: Brzonkala tells her roommate about the alleged
assaults.
April: Brzonkala charges Morrison and Crawford with sexual
assault in the University Judicial System.
May: A judicial system panel finds there's not enough evidence
against Crawford to take action against him. Morrison is found
guilty of sexual misconduct and suspended for two semesters. He
appeals and loses.
July 21: Morrison gets a second hearing.
Aug. 4: In a letter to Brzonkala, Tech administrators say
Morrison was found guilty of abusive conduct in the second hearing
and suspended for two semesters. He appeals again, calling the
sanction unduly harsh.
Aug. 21: In a letter to Morrison, Provost Peggy Meszaros reduces
his suspension to probation and requires him to attend a one-hour
counseling session.
Nov. 28: Brzonkala goes public with her allegations in an
interview with Tech's campus newspaper. Brzonkala said she wanted
other women on campus to know what she'd been through.
Dec. 27: Brzonkala files an $8.3 million civil suit in federal
court against Tech, Morrison and Crawford. The federal Violence
Against Women Act is the suit's underpinning. Later, football player
Cornell Brown - who provided an alibi for Crawford at campus
judicial hearings - is added to the suit.
May 7, 1996: U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser dismisses Tech
from the lawsuit.
June 3: Brzonkala's lawyer asks that Brown be dismissed from the
lawsuit, saying she had learned that he could not have been present
the night Brzonkala says she was raped.
June 19: A federal judge in Connecticut upholds the
constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act.
July 21: Brzonkala's lawyer files lawsuits in state court against
Tech and the three football players.
July 29: Judge Kiser rules that the Violence Against Women Act is
unconstitutional and dismisses Brzonkala's federal lawsuit.
KEYWORDS: LAWSUIT RAPE VIRGINIA TECH UNCONSTITUTIONAL
LAW FEDERAL COURT by CNB