Which case struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act by ruling that gender-based violence regulation is not an interstate commerce problem?

• A. United States v. Morrison (2000)
• B. Lopez v. United States (1995)
• C. Printz v. United States (1997)
• D. Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is how far Congress can reach under the Commerce Clause, especially when the law isn’t regulating a clear economic activity. United States v. Morrison tackles that head-on. The Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act by holding that gender-based violence, by itself, is not an economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Because the statute’s civil remedy provision was framed as a federal regulation of an activity that isn’t basically economic, it exceeded Congress’s commerce power. In other words, the decision says you can’t rely on commerce power to regulate private acts of violence just because they may have some indirect impact on the economy.

Context helps: other Commerce Clause cases build the same theme. For example, Lopez showed that simply possessing a gun near a school isn’t a regulation of an economic activity with a substantial interstate-commerce link, so federal authority was limited there too. Printz illustrates federalism concerns when Congress tries to impose federal duties on state officials, and Gitlow is about incorporation of the First Amendment rather than commerce power. But Morrison is the direct answer to the question, because it addresses Congress’s attempt to regulate gender-based violence through the VAWA remedy and finds that attempt outside the scope of interstate commerce.