Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 699

529US3

Unit: $U54

[10-04-01 09:35:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

624

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

Opinion of the Court

To accept petitioners’ argument, moreover, one must add
to the three Justices joining Justice Brennan’s reasoned ex-
planation for his belief that the Civil Rights Cases were
wrongly decided, the three Justices joining Justice Clark’s
opinion who gave no explanation whatever for their similar
view. This is simply not the way that reasoned constitu-
tional adjudication proceeds. We accordingly have no hesi-
tation in saying that it would take more than the naked
dicta contained in Justice Clark’s opinion, when added to
Justice Brennan’s opinion, to cast any doubt upon the endur-
ing vitality of the Civil Rights Cases and Harris.

Petitioners also rely on District of Columbia v. Carter,
409 U. S. 418 (1973). Carter was a case addressing the ques-
tion whether the District of Columbia was a “State” within
the meaning of Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983—a section
which by its terms requires state action before it may be
employed. A footnote in that opinion recites the same
litany respecting Guest that petitioners rely on. This litany
is of course entirely dicta, and in any event cannot rise above
its source. We believe that the description of the § 5 power
contained in the Civil Rights Cases is correct:

“But where a subject is not submitted to the general
legislative power of Congress, but is only submitted
thereto for the purpose of rendering effective some pro-
hibition against particular [s]tate legislation or [s]tate
action in reference to that subject, the power given is
limited by its object, and any legislation by Congress in
the matter must necessarily be corrective in its charac-
ter, adapted to counteract and redress the operation of
such prohibited state laws or proceedings of [s]tate ofﬁ-
cers.”

109 U. S., at 18.

Petitioners alternatively argue that, unlike the situation
in the Civil Rights Cases, here there has been gender-based
disparate treatment by state authorities, whereas in those
cases there was no indication of such state action. There is