A wonderful affirmation by the Supreme court that crime is a matter for the States' to manage and that every good thing that can be conceived of by the mind of man isn't covered under the Commerce Clause:
May 16, 2000
Gender Violence Isn't a Federal Crime, Justices Say, Striking Down Legislation
By ROBERT S. GREENBERGER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, in a case that mobilized women's rights groups and drew businesses' attention, eviscerated a law letting victims of rape and other gender-based violence sue their attackers in federal court.
The court ruled 5-4 that Congress lacked authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to enact a key provision of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.
Ruling in Medicare Case
But in a separate case, the high court expanded the federal government's reach over crime. The Justices ruled that if a person bribes an organization connected with the Medicare program, the person may be charged with a federal crime rather than a state crime.
Regarding the Commerce Clause, which regulates interstate commercial activity, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "Gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity." He added that the Fourteenth Amendment's language "places certain limitations on the manner in which Congress may attack discriminatory conduct."
Victims of violence currently can seek civil damages in most state courts, although some critics complain that justice there can be uneven.
The high court's split along ideological lines, with the court's conservatives outvoting its more liberal members, was a stinging defeat for the Clinton administration, which supports the law.
Business groups had been awaiting the decision for further clues about the extent to which the court would rein in the Commerce Clause. The clause has been cited by Congress for more than six decades to write laws -- ranging from civil-rights statutes to environmental policy -- that have become a familiar part of the regulatory landscape. In Monday's decision, the Justices reaffirmed a key 1995 decision that reversed this course and for the first time since the 1930s set limits on Commerce Clause authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curbing the Commerce Clause
In a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court voted to strike down a key portion of the Violence Against Women Law.
THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN LAW SAYS:
'All persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes or violence motivated by gender.'
THE SUPREME COURT OPINION SAYS:
'We ... reject the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce.'
'... limitations are necessary to prevent the Fourteenth Amendment from obliterating the Framers' carefully crafted balance of power between the States and the National government.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no question that [Monday's decision] puts limits on the Commerce Clause; the only question still to be determined is how much that will be the case in areas that affect business," said Mark Levy, a Washington attorney with Howrey Simon Arnold & White.
Lawsuit by Virginia Tech Student
The case stems from a 1995 lawsuit brought by Christy Brzonkala, a former Virginia Tech student, who alleged that in 1994 two football players at the school had assaulted and raped her. On Monday, Martha Davis, an attorney with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented Ms. Brzonkala, said her group's concern is that the ruling "will chill Congress from dealing with not only this, but also a whole range of civil-rights issues."
But the ruling cheered Michael Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, which represented one of the football players. The message is "Congress doesn't have unlimited power," he said. (U.S. vs. Morrison)
In the Medicare decision, the Supreme Court dealt with the legal issue of what constitutes a "benefit" under federal law. A federal bribery statute makes it illegal, among other things, to bribe an organization that receives in any year under a federal program benefits in excess of $10,000.
In 1993, Jeffrey Fischer, president and part owner of Quality Medical Consultants, a company that did billing audits for health-care companies, negotiated a $1.2 million loan from West Volusia Hospital Authority in Florida. West Volusia, a municipal agency, operated two hospitals. A subsequent investigation charged that Mr. Fischer had illegally paid money to certain people associated with Volusia to obtain the loan. He was convicted after a federal trial in Orlando, Fla.
Mr. Fischer argued that the government had failed to prove that the hospital authority, the organization affected by his illegal actions, received federal benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program.
The high court ruled 7-2 that Medicare funding can be the basis for invoking the federal bribery law. Mr. Fischer had said that individual Medicare patients, not the organization, had received the Medicare federal benefits.
In its decision, the court said, "Medicare operates with a purpose and design above and beyond point-of-sale patient care, and it follows that the benefits of the program extend in a broader manner as well."
But the court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, cautioned that the term "benefit" shouldn't be construed too widely. "Doing so would turn almost every act of fraud or bribery into a federal offense, upsetting the proper federal balance," the court said.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that is just what the court's decision did. "The only persons who receive 'benefits' under Medicare are the individual elderly and disabled Medicare patients, not the medical providers who serve them," he said. (Fischer vs. U.S.)
Write to Robert S. Greenberger at bob.greenberger@wsj.com
May 16, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender Violence Isn't a Federal Crime,
Justices Say, Striking Down Legislation
By ROBERT S. GREENBERGER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, in a case that mobilized women's rights groups and drew businesses' attention, eviscerated a law letting victims of rape and other gender-based violence sue their attackers in federal court.
The court ruled 5-4 that Congress lacked authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to enact a key provision of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.
Ruling in Medicare Case
But in a separate case, the high court expanded the federal government's reach over crime. The Justices ruled that if a person bribes an organization connected with the Medicare program, the person may be charged with a federal crime rather than a state crime.
See the full text of the Supreme Court's opinion on the Violence Against Women Act.
See the full text of the Supreme Court's opinion on hospital crime.
Regarding the Commerce Clause, which regulates interstate commercial activity, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "Gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity." He added that the Fourteenth Amendment's language "places certain limitations on the manner in which Congress may attack discriminatory conduct."
Victims of violence currently can seek civil damages in most state courts, although some critics complain that justice there can be uneven.
The high court's split along ideological lines, with the court's conservatives outvoting its more liberal members, was a stinging defeat for the Clinton administration, which supports the law.
Business groups had been awaiting the decision for further clues about the extent to which the court would rein in the Commerce Clause. The clause has been cited by Congress for more than six decades to write laws -- ranging from civil-rights statutes to environmental policy -- that have become a familiar part of the regulatory landscape. In Monday's decision, the Justices reaffirmed a key 1995 decision that reversed this course and for the first time since the 1930s set limits on Commerce Clause authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curbing the Commerce Clause
In a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court voted to strike down a key portion of the Violence Against Women Law.
THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN LAW SAYS:
'All persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes or violence motivated by gender.'
THE SUPREME COURT OPINION SAYS:
'We ... reject the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce.'
'... limitations are necessary to prevent the Fourteenth Amendment from obliterating the Framers' carefully crafted balance of power between the States and the National government.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no question that [Monday's decision] puts limits on the Commerce Clause; the only question still to be determined is how much that will be the case in areas that affect business," said Mark Levy, a Washington attorney with Howrey Simon Arnold & White.
Lawsuit by Virginia Tech Student
The case stems from a 1995 lawsuit brought by Christy Brzonkala, a former Virginia Tech student, who alleged that in 1994 two football players at the school had assaulted and raped her. On Monday, Martha Davis, an attorney with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented Ms. Brzonkala, said her group's concern is that the ruling "will chill Congress from dealing with not only this, but also a whole range of civil-rights issues."
But the ruling cheered Michael Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, which represented one of the football players. The message is "Congress doesn't have unlimited power," he said. (U.S. vs. Morrison)
In the Medicare decision, the Supreme Court dealt with the legal issue of what constitutes a "benefit" under federal law. A federal bribery statute makes it illegal, among other things, to bribe an organization that receives in any year under a federal program benefits in excess of $10,000.
In 1993, Jeffrey Fischer, president and part owner of Quality Medical Consultants, a company that did billing audits for health-care companies, negotiated a $1.2 million loan from West Volusia Hospital Authority in Florida. West Volusia, a municipal agency, operated two hospitals. A subsequent investigation charged that Mr. Fischer had illegally paid money to certain people associated with Volusia to obtain the loan. He was convicted after a federal trial in Orlando, Fla.
Mr. Fischer argued that the government had failed to prove that the hospital authority, the organization affected by his illegal actions, received federal benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program.
The high court ruled 7-2 that Medicare funding can be the basis for invoking the federal bribery law. Mr. Fischer had said that individual Medicare patients, not the organization, had received the Medicare federal benefits.
In its decision, the court said, "Medicare operates with a purpose and design above and beyond point-of-sale patient care, and it follows that the benefits of the program extend in a broader manner as well."
But the court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, cautioned that the term "benefit" shouldn't be construed too widely. "Doing so would turn almost every act of fraud or bribery into a federal offense, upsetting the proper federal balance," the court said.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that is just what the court's decision did. "The only persons who receive 'benefits' under Medicare are the individual elderly and disabled Medicare patients, not the medical providers who serve them," he said. (Fischer vs. U.S.)
Write to Robert S. Greenberger at bob.greenberger@wsj.com
interactive.wsj.com |
