Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 679.0

529US3

Unit: $U54

[10-04-01 09:35:39] PAGES PGT: OPIN

604

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

Opinion of the Court

newspaper that Morrison would be returning to Virginia
Tech for the fall 1995 semester, she dropped out of the
university.

In December 1995, Brzonkala sued Morrison, Crawford,
and Virginia Tech in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia. Her complaint alleged that
Morrison’s and Crawford’s attack violated § 13981 and that
Virginia Tech’s handling of her complaint violated Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373–375,
20 U. S. C. §§ 1681–1688. Morrison and Crawford moved to
dismiss this complaint on the grounds that it failed to state
a claim and that § 13981’s civil remedy is unconstitutional.
The United States, petitioner in No. 99–5, intervened to de-
fend § 13981’s constitutionality.

The District Court dismissed Brzonkala’s Title IX claims
against Virginia Tech for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. See Brzonkala v. Virginia Poly-
technic and State Univ., 935 F. Supp. 772 (WD Va. 1996).
It then held that Brzonkala’s complaint stated a claim against
Morrison and Crawford under § 13981, but dismissed the
complaint because it concluded that Congress lacked author-
ity to enact the section under either the Commerce Clause or
§ 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brzonkala v. Virginia
Polytechnic and State Univ., 935 F. Supp. 779 (WD Va. 1996).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court, reinstating Brzonkala’s § 13981 claim and
her Title IX hostile environment claim.1 Brzonkala v. Vir-
ginia Polytechnic and State Univ., 132 F. 3d 949 (CA4 1997).
The full Court of Appeals vacated the panel’s opinion and
reheard the case en banc. The en banc court then issued
an opinion afﬁrming the District Court’s conclusion that
Brzonkala stated a claim under § 13981 because her com-
plaint alleged a crime of violence and the allegations of
Morrison’s crude and derogatory statements regarding his

1 The panel afﬁrmed the dismissal of Brzonkala’s Title IX disparate

treatment claim. See 132 F. 3d, at 961–962.