Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 695.0

529US3

Unit: $U54

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

620

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

Opinion of the Court

tion is supported by a voluminous congressional record.
Speciﬁcally, Congress received evidence that many par-
ticipants in state justice systems are perpetuating an array
of erroneous stereotypes and assumptions. Congress con-
cluded that these discriminatory stereotypes often result
in insufﬁcient investigation and prosecution of gender-
motivated crime, inappropriate focus on the behavior and
credibility of the victims of that crime, and unacceptably le-
nient punishments for those who are actually convicted of
gender-motivated violence. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 103–
711, at 385–386; S. Rep. No. 103–138, at 38, 41–55; S. Rep.
No. 102–197, at 33–35, 41, 43–47. Petitioners contend that
this bias denies victims of gender-motivated violence the
equal protection of the laws and that Congress therefore
acted appropriately in enacting a private civil remedy
against the perpetrators of gender-motivated violence to
both remedy the States’ bias and deter future instances
of discrimination in the state courts.

As our cases have established, state-sponsored gender
discrimination violates equal protection unless it “ ‘serves
“important governmental objectives and . . . the discrimi-
natory means employed” are “substantially related to the
achievement of those objectives.” ’ ” United States v. Vir-
ginia, 518 U. S. 515, 533 (1996) (quoting Mississippi Univ.
for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 724 (1982), in turn quot-
ing Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142, 150
(1980)). See also Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 198–199
(1976). However, the language and purpose of the Four-
teenth Amendment place certain limitations on the man-
ner in which Congress may attack discriminatory conduct.
These limitations are necessary to prevent the Fourteenth
Amendment from obliterating the Framers’ carefully crafted
balance of power between the States and the National
Government. See Flores, supra, at 520–524 (reviewing the
history of the Fourteenth Amendment’s enactment and dis-
cussing the contemporary belief that the Amendment “ ‘does