Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 10 P27 ppsx

stated that Truman had acted “in full confor- mity with his duties under the Constitution.” Vinson died on September 8, 1953, while still serving on the Court, having written 77 opinions for the court and 13 dissents. In retrospect, some critics have regarded his tenure as a failure: his lack of vision and his apparent disinterest in writing his own opinions have provoked charges that he was among the few outright failures in Supreme Court history. On balance, his administrative skills seem to have outstripped his judicial ability; he managed a deeply divided Court with tact and diplomacy. FURTHER READINGS St. Clair, James E., and Linda Gugin. 2002. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson of Kentucky: A Political Biography. Lexington: Univ. Press of Kentucky Urofsky, Melvin I. 1997. Division and Discord: The Supreme Court under Stone and Vinson, 1941–1953. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press. CROSS REFE RENCES Chief Justice; Dennis v. United States. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994 A sweeping response to the perception of increased violence again st women in America, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 was a broad-based law that created everything from funding of domestic-violence programs to new CIVIL RIGHTS remedies for women who were victims of gender-based attacks. The scope of the law made it somewhat controversial, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that at least one provision of the act was unconstitutional. VAWA still managed to have a far-reaching effect on gender-based crime, and reauthorization of the act in 2005 means that it will continue to have influence into the twenty- first century. VAWA was first proposed in 1990, and support was subsequently strengthened by testimony before Congress of high numbers of crimes perpetrated against women every year, often by family members or boyfriends. The Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill confirmation bat- tle (see SEXUAL HARASSMENT “Clarence Thomas and ANITA HILL Hearings”) and subsequent election of unprecedented numbers of women to the U.S. Congress in 1992 also helped to spur the act’s passage. When the VAWA was voted on as part of an Omnibus Crime bill in 1994, the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of it in both houses. VAWA can be divided into three separate areas where it attempts to combat violence against women. The first area, and probably the least controversial, was in the area of funding. VAWA provides $1.6 billion over six years for education, research, treatment of domestic and sex-crime victims, and the improvement of state criminal justice systems. It distributed funds to increase safety for women on public transpor- tation, for shelters, and for youth education programs. In addition, it provides funds for the training of judges and other court personnel in combating gender bias in the courts, and authorizes funding to pay the cost of testing for sexually transmitted diseases for victims of SEXUAL ABUSE and to increase safety on college campuses. VAWA also authorizes the provision of grants from the attorney general to local governments to improve retention of crime statistics, and allots money for the protection of battered immigrant women and children. VAWA increases criminal provision s for crimes based on gender (18 U.S.C. §§ 2261- 2265). It prohibits interstate DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, making it a felony to cross state lines with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate that person’s spouse or intimate partner. It also allows “full faith and credit” for protective orders across state lines and prohibits the interstate violation of a state court’s order of protection that involves prote ction against credible threats of violence, repeated harass- ment, or bodily injury to the person or persons whom the order covers. It allows the victim in a prosecution under VAWA the opportunity to be heard regarding the danger posed by the DEFENDANT during a pretrial detention hearing. VAWA provides for restitution to the victim, regardless of any other civil or criminal penalties the law provides. The perpetrator is held liable for the full amount of the victim’s losses in the areas of medical services; physical and occupational therapy; necessary trans- portation, temporary housing, and child-care expenses; lost income; attorneys’ fees, plus any costs incurred in obtaining a civil protection order; and “any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.” The most controversial part of VAWA was the provision giving gender-based victims of violence a CAUSE OF ACTION against their GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 248 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1994 attackers. (42 USCA § 13981) “A person (including a person who acts under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State) who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender shall be liable to the party injured, in an action for the recovery of compensatory and PUNITIVE DAMAGES, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate,” stated the pertinent part of the act. Congress deter- mined that it had the right to enact this provision under the COMMERCE CLA USE of the Constitution, which allows it to regulate inter- state commerce, and under the Fourteenth Amendment’s EQUAL PROTECTION clause. This CIVIL RIGHTS remedy in the VAWA created by far the most commentary of any provision of the act. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S. Ct. 1740, 146 L. Ed. 2d 658 (2000) struck down this provision of the act. Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST , writing the opinion for the 5–4 court majority, stated “Congress’s effort in (VAWA) to provide a federal civil remedy can be sustained neither under the Commerce Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the Commo nwealth of Virginia, and not by the United States.” Despite this setback, Congress reauthorized the act in both 2000 and 2005. The 2000 reauthorization bill provided more funding for domestic-violence programs and new measures against the trafficking of women and children into prostitution. This initiative was designed to ensure that despite the loss of the civil rights provision, VAWA would continue to affect the course of the nation’s fight against gender-based violence. The act will be up for reauthorization again in 2010. FURTHER READINGS Fine, David M. 1998. “The Violence Against Women Act of 1994: The Proper Federal Role in Policing Domestic Violence.” Cornell Law Review 84 (November). Gleason, Christy. 2001. “Presence, Perspectives and Power: Gender and the Rationale Differences in the Debate over the Violence Against Women Act.”Women’s Rights Law Reporter 23 (summer/fall). Goldfarb, Sally F. 2000. “‘No Civilized System of Justice’: The Fate of the Violence Against Women Act.” West Virginia Law Review 15 (spring). CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights; Commerce Clause. VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 Of all of the crime bills passed at the federal level in the history of the United States, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was arguably the most far-reaching and comprehensive. Costing $30 billion and taking up over 1,100 pages, the Violent Crime Control Act covered a mind-boggling variety of areas, ranging from an assault weapons ban to money for midnight basketball programs. The net result was a bill whose effects the nation was feeling ten years later—a bill whose proponents gave it credit for the sharp drop in crime throughout the 1990s, and whose critics dismissed it as an unprecedented federal boondoggle. Background of the Violent Crime Control Act The Violent Crime Control Act was passed amid a strong public concern about crime in the early 1990s. Polls had indicated that the American public placed crime at or near the top of the list when asked to name their civic concerns. A large rise in violent crime over a 30- year period—over 500 percent, according to one study—contributed to the public’s desire to see something done about the crime rate. Congress passed four omnibus federal crime bills between 1984 and 1990 in response to this crime wave. Nevertheless, crime continued to rise, and the public’s perception was that the federal government was not doing enough to stop crime. However, conservatives and liberals disagreed on the best way to address problem of criminal violence. Conservatives favored seeing violent crim- inals serve more of their sentences, and they increased spending for prison building. They also favored curbing the right of HABEAS CORPUS for death row inmates, and increas ing the ability of police to process criminal suspects by reforming exclusionary rules. They also favored so-called THREE STRIKES LAWS, requiring long prison sentences for three-time felons. Liberals wanted to see more money directed toward social programs that would help to prevent criminal behavior. The y favored in- creased GUN CONTROL. They wanted to see a stop to racially discriminatory laws, and they wanted to make sure that minorities were not treated unfairly by the criminal justice system. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 249 The election of President BILL CLINTON in 1992, which for the first time since 1980 meant that the White House and the Congress would be controlled by the same party, increased the chances of meaningful crime legislation. Clin- ton, who was trying to push through a HEALTH CARE plan that was perceived as liberal, wanted an issue where he could take a conservative approach, and anti-crime legislation seemed like a promising area. In addition, both the Congress and the White House noted the 1993 off-year gubernatorial elections, which many candidates won using strong anti-crime themes. The stage was set for a comprehensive anti- crime bill to pass. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Dela.). Despite the interest of both parties in passing the legislation, it still ended up having a difficult road. Among the problems were the attempts of some liberal representatives to introduce a “Racial Justice Act” which would have allowed death row inmates, at the state and federal level, to challenge their death sen tences if statistics suggested that the race of either defendants or victims had affected past death- sentencing decisions in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. This provision was strongly opp osed by Republicans and conserva- tive Democrats and ended up being dropped from the final bill. A proposed assault weapons ban was also controversial. Eventually, however, both the House and the SENATE were able to pass a bill, and President Clinton signed it into law on Sept. 13, 1994. Provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce- ment Act provided $30.2 billion over six years for crime control and related social programs— the most money ever allotted in a federal crime bill. State and local law enforcement would receive $10.8 billion of this; $9.9 billion was earmarked for prisons, and $6.9 billion was earmarked for crime prevention. The largest portion of this funding went to community policing. The bill created an $8.8 billion program to add 100,000 police officers nationwide for police patrols. In addition, the bill allotted $2.6 billion for the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINIS- TRATION (DEA), IMMIGRATION and Naturalization Service (INS), and Border Patrol. There was $245 million given to rural anti-crime efforts, and $150 million to help implement new laws requiring up to a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases. The act gave $1.6 billion to fight violence against women, including money to train and add police, prosecutors, and judges; money for victims’ services and advocates, and money for rape-education and community-prevention programs. Perhaps because the bill was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Demo- cratic president, so cial programs were given a big priority. These programs included $567 million for after-school, weekend, and summer “safe haven” programs for youth; $243 million for in-school programs providing positive activities and alternatives to crime and drug abuse; and $377 million to be used for anti-gang programs, midnight sports leagues, boys and girls clubs, and other projects. There was also $1 billion for drug-court programs and substance-abuse treatment for non-violent offenders. The most controversial provision of the act was non-monetary: the assault weapon s ban. It called for a 10-year ban on the manufacture, transfer, or possession of 19 semi-automatic assault weapons. Certa in kinds of revolving- cylinder shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, semi- automatic pistols, and ammunition magazines were also banned. The act also outlawed the ownership of handguns by juveniles. Less controversially, the bill established a three-strikes law that mandated life in prison for a third serious violent-felony conviction or a violent-felony conviction that follows a serious violent felony and a serious drug conviction under federal law. The crime bill also created 60 new federal crimes that call for the death penalty, including MURDER of federal judges; murder of federal law enforcement officers; murder of high-level members of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH; murder of a member of Congress; KIDNAPPING that results in death, and fatal violence committed in international airports. Finally, on the subject of prisons, the bill allocated $9.9 billion, including $7.9 billion to build state prisons for violent offenders, and $1.8 billion to states for jailing criminal illegal immigrants. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 250 VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 Effect of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 When President Clinton signed the Viole nt Crime Control Act, he called it the “toughest and smartest crime bill in our history.” The bill came under fierce criticism, however. The right objected to the extra spending, and the left lamented the bill’s failure to address racial issues and the addition of the three-strikes law. When the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, the re were threats of wholesale revisions to the law, but they were never carried out, and most of the provisions of the law were able to take effect. What the bill actually accomplished was debatable, although proponents, including the president, noted the precipitous drop in violent crime throughout the 1990s, and they gave the crime bill credit for at least some of this improvement. FURTHER READINGS Clinton, William Jefferson. 1995. “Remarks on Signing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.” Univ. of Dayton Law Review 20 (winter). McCollum, Bill. 1995. “The Struggle for Effective Anti- Crime Legislation—An Analysis of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.” Univ. of Dayton Law Review 20 (winter). CROSS REFERENCES Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure. VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLVES The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves include resolutions passed by the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures in 1798 and 1799 protesting the federal Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves were expressions of opposition by the Jeffersonian Republicans against the Federalist-sponsored ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS of 1798. Besides opposing these particular measures, the legisla- tive resolutions proposed a compact theory of the U.S. Constitution that contended that state legislatures possessed all powers not specifically granted to the federal government and gave the states the right to rule upon the constitutionality of federal legislation. The resolutions became the basis for nineteenth-century STATES’ RIGHTS doctrines, which were employed by Southern states to defend the institution of SLAVERY during the secession crisis preceding the American Civil War. The Alien and SEDITION Acts were passed as internal security laws, restricting ALIENS and limiting FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, based on the assumption in 1798 that the United States might soon be at war with France. Though the acts were widely popular, THOMAS JEFFERSON (then vice president in the admi nistration of JOHN ADAMS ) and JAMES MADISON (one of the primary architects of the U.S. Constitution) opposed the measures. They expressed their opposition through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolv es. Madison drafted the Virginia Resolves (Decem- ber 21, 1798), and Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolves (November 10, 1798, and November 14, 1799), though their roles were not disclosed to the public for 25 years. The resolves expressed the Republicans ’ theory of the limited nature of the grant of power to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. This theory was buttressed by the TENTH AMENDMENT, which stipulates that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Because the Constitution did not give Congress the express power to provide for the expulsion of aliens who had committed no crimes and whose countries were not at war with the United States, the Republic ans rea- soned that the provisions of the Alien and Sedition Acts that called for the DEPORTATION aliens deemed dangerous were unconstitutional. Likewise, Congress had not been given the express power to impose strict residency requirements on aliens or impose harsh punish- ments for SEDITIOUS LIBEL, leading Republicans to conclude that these provisions were also unconstitutional. Jefferson and Madison asserted in the resolves that state legislatures had the right to determine whether the federal government was complying with the mandate of the Constitu- tion. Under their compact theory of the Constitution, they argued that the grant of power to the federal government was in the nature of an authorization to act as an agent for the individual state legislatures. The resolves maintained that the individual state legislatures retained the ultimate sovereignty of the people. Therefore, state legislatures, as equal parties to the Constitution, had the right to determine whether the federal government was complying with the original agency directives, and they had the right to declare noncompliance. Jefferson GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLVES 251 and Madison also argued that the states had the right to be released from the compact (the Constitution) if compliance was not forthcom- ing, thereby suggesting that secession from the Union was legitimate. Jefferson, in the second of the Kentucky Resolves, contended that the “sovereign and independent states” had the right to “interpose” themselves between their citizens and improper national legislative actions and to “nullify” acts of Congress they deemed unconstitutional. The Federalists strenuously objected to this theory, fearing that the federal government would be seriously weakened. The Federalists argued that only the federal courts could rule on the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which they said represented valid exercises of implied powers in time of national crisis. The acts, they argued, were authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, of the Constitution, which directs Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers vested by the Constitu- tion in the government of the United States. Because the federal government was vested with the power of conducting the national defense, the Federalists asserted, exercises of reasonable security measures, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, were permissible. No other state legislatures passed resolves in support of those of Virginia and Kentucky, including the legislatures of Republican- controlled states. These other states refused, in large part, because of opposition to France, based on the XYZ AFFAIR, in which the French refused to recognize U.S. diplomats and demanded bribes before any such recognition would be forthcom- ing. In this political climate, state legislatures supported the Alien and Sedition Acts. The acts expired or were repealed between 1800 and 1802, after Jefferson became presi- dent. Nevertheless, the theories of limited federal government and nullification remained popular during the early nineteenth century. New England states asserted nullification during the WAR OF 1812, and South Carolina asserted it in opposition to federal tariff legislation in 1832. South Carolina statesman and political theorist JOHN C. CALHOUN further developed Jefferson’s theory, giving the states the right to dissolve their contractual relationship with the federal government rather than submit to policies they saw as destructive to their local self-interests. These ideas ultimately became the legal justifi- cation for the secession of Southern states from the Union in 1861. FURTHER READINGS Costa, Greg. 1999. “John Marshall, the Sedition Act, and Free Speech in the Early Republic.” Texas Law Review 77 (March). Nowak, John E., and Ronald D. Rotunda. 2010. Constitu- tional Law. 8th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West. Watkins, William J., Jr. 1999. “The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions: Guideposts of Limited Government.” Independent Review 3 (winter). CROSS REFERENCES Adams, John; Jefferson, Thomas, Kentucky Resolutions; Madison, James; Sece ssion; U.S. Civil War; Virginia and Kentucky Resolves (Ap pendix, Primary Document); XYZ Affair. VIRGINIA CONVENTIONS The Virginia Conventions were a series of five meetings that were held after the Boston Tea Party in which representatives from the colonies gathered to decide the future relations between the colonies and England. The first convention, which opened August 1, 1774, in Williamsburg, Virginia, was the result of a serious conflict with England that had occurred three months earlier. On May 26, t he Virginia legislature, the House of Burgesses, had declared a day of prayer and fasting to acknowledge the plight of Bostonians after the English had closed the port of Boston as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. The royal governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, ordered the House of Burgesses to be closed to discourage any display of sympathy for the rebellious Bostonians. Angered by Lord Dunmore’s actions, the Virginia burgesses issued a plan for a meeting of representatives from all the colonies. In August, the colonists met in Williams- burg and chose Peyton Randolph as their presiding officer. The convention adopted several resolutions including one on the non- importation of English merchandise and an- other that said that the colonists should refuse to export colonial goods to England unless the English agreed to come to terms with them. Thomas Jefferson’s work A Summary View of the Rights of British America, which was introduced at this convention, was used as a guideline at future meetings. The second convention met in Richm ond, Virginia, for a one-week period in 1775, from GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 252 VIRGINIA CONVENTIONS March 20 to March 27. At this convention, PATRICK HENRY initiated a program for defensive action and presented his celebrated “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, which inspired the colonists to follow the cause. The third meeting was held in Richmond on July 17, 1775. There the representatives de- nounced the actions that the royal governor had taken against Virginia, including disban ding the assembly and mobilizing troops. When the governor fled to the sanctuary of an English ship, the convention became the governing force of Virginia. The delegates enacted legisla- tion and established a Committee of Safety to direct military activities. Williamsburg was the site of the fourth convention, which was held in December 1775. With Edmund Pendleton as president, the delegates empowered the Committee of Safety to be the source of governmental authority in Virginia. By May 6, 1776, the date of the final convention, the colonists were moving deter- minedly toward complete independence from England. In Williamsburg, the delegates de- clared their desire for freedom in a statement issued to their congressional representatives. Virginia initiated the action, and on June 12, the convention ratified the Virginia Bill of Rights. This bill of rights served as a model for similar documents in the other colonies. Virginia was the first state to have a new constitution, and Patrick Henry served as the first governor under the new government. VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Statement of rights adopted by the colony of Virginia in 1776, which served as the model for the U.S. Constitution’s BILL OF RIGHTS. The Virginia Declaration of Rights is an important document in U.S. constitutional history. Adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776, its sixteen sections enumerated specific civil liberties that govern- ment could not legitimately take away . The declaration was adopted during the last months of British colonial rule. THOMAS JEFFERSON used parts of it in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, and it later served as a model for the Bill of Rights that was added to the U.S. Constitution. In the spring of 1776 the Virginia Conven- tion of Delegates convened in the colonial capitol of Williamsburg to decide the form of government Virginia should have and the rights its citizens should enjoy. The convention took place at a time when British attempts to tax and regulate the thirteen colonies had generated colonial resistance and a growing desire for political independence. The Virginia Declaration ofRights waslargely the product of GEORGE MASON, a plantation owner, real estate speculator, and neighbor of GEORGE WASHINGTON . A strong believer in human liberty and limited government, Mason crafted a docu- ment that guaranteed the citizens of Virginia, upon achieving independence from Great Brit- ain, all the civil liberties they had lost under British rule. In its opening sentence the declaration states that “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights” which they cannot surrender, “namely, the enjoyment of life, and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Jefferson’s famous phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence was influenced by Mason and JOHN LOCKE, the English philosopher who first broached the idea of natural and inherent rights in the seventeenth century. The declaration of rights enumerates specific civil liberties, including FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,the free exercise of religion, and the INJUNCTION that “no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.” Other provisions include a prohibition against excessive bail or CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS, the requirements of evidence and good cause before obtaining a SEARCH WARRANT to enter a place, the right to trial by jury, and the need for a “well regulated militia” to be “under strict subordination” to the civilian government. Many of these provisions were incorporated into the Bill ofRights. The Virginia Declaration of Rights was widely read and won an international reputation as an inspirational document. CROSS REFERENCES “Virginia Declaration of Rights” (Appendix, Primary Document). VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES V. In United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264, 135 L. Ed. 2d 735 (1996), the U.S. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES V. 253 Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on sex-based discrimination when it ruled that Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a publicly funded military college, must give up its all-male enrollment policy and admit women. The deci- sion, which also affected The Citadel, South Carolina’s state-run, all-male, military school, was a decisive blow to state-sponsored discrimi- nation. In so ruling, the Court rejected a proposal by Virginia that it establish a separate military program for women at a private college . The case began in 1990 when a female high school student complained to the U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT about the VMI male-only admission policy. Her application had been rejected without regard to her qualifications. The JUSTICE DEPART- MENT sued the Commonwealth of Virginia and VMI, arguing that discrimination on the basis of sex violated the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The district court ruled in favor of VMI, grounding the decision on the need to preserve the “VMI experience,” a physically and emotion- ally demanding military regimen that has remained unchanged since the early nineteenth century (United States v. Virginia, 766 F. Supp. 1407 [W.D. Va. 1991]). The court concluded that this “adversative” method of education could not work in a coeducational environment. The critical component of this method was the subjection of first-year students to the “rat line.” First-year students are called “rats” because, as one expert testified, the rat is“probably the lowest animal on earth.” During the first seven months of college, the rats are treated miserably. Features of the rat line include “indoctrina- tion, egalitarian treatment, rituals, minute regulation of individual behaviors, frequent punishment, and the use of privileges to support desired behaviors.” Rats have no privacy. The tradition of constant supervision of cadets has led to stark, unac commodating barracks without curtains, door locks, or other physical barriers that promote privacy. The judge concluded that coeducation would prevent both men and women from undergoing the “VMI experience.” The pres- ence of women would “distract male students from their studies,” while tending to “impair the esprit de corps and egalitarian atmosphere.” The barracks would have to be modified to provide privacy, and the physical education requirements would have to be altered for women. If women were admitted, VMI would eventually drop the adversative model. There- fore, the judge ruled that VMI was “fully justified” in prohibiting women. The same-sex admission policy promoted diversity of educa- tional opportunities because out of 15 state- funded COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES in Virginia, VMI alone had this policy. This diversity was a legitimate state objective that rebutted the claim of unequal protection of the law. The Justice Department appealed the deci- sion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the decision and sent the case back to the district court (United States v. Virginia, 976 F.2d 890 [4th Cir. 1992]). In his majority opinion, Judge Paul Niemeyer accepted the district court’s factual determinations that the VMI adversative model justified a single-sex admission policy and that critical elements of the model would be substantially chan ged if women were admitted. The appeals court also pointed out that all the parties acknowle dged “the positive and unique aspects of the program.” The appeals court concluded, however, that the Commonwealth of Virginia had failed to “articulate an important objective which sup- ports the provision of this unique educational opportunity to men only.” Judge Niemeyer stated that the “decisive question” was why the state offered this educational opportunity only to men. The state was required to articulate an objective because of the type of constitutional review in this case. In lawsuits challenging SEX DISCRIMINATION by the government, the govern- ment must show that the sex-based classifica- tion is “substantially related to an important government objective.” The “unique benefit” offered by VMI did not answer the question of whether women could be denied admission under a policy of diversity. Judge Niemeyer found nothing in the record that explained why the Commonwealth of Virginia offered this unique benefit only to men. Though VMI had “adequately defended” its system, it had failed to identify or establish the existence of a government objective that justified its single-sex admission policy on the basis of educational diversity. The appeals court remanded the case to the district court. Virginia then advanced a proposal to create a parallel program for women, called the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL). VWIL would be located at Mary GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 254 VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES V. Baldwin College, a private liberal arts college for women. VMI would remain all male. The district court accepted the plan (United States v. Virginia, 852 F. Supp. 471 [W.D. Va. 1994]). The Justice Department appealed again to the Fourth Circuit, but this time the appeals court upheld the remedial plan. The court concluded that Virginia’s plan for single-gender options was a legitimate objective. It also found that VMI and VWIL would provide “substantively comparable” benefits (United States v. Virginia, 44 F.3d 1229 [4th Cir. 1995]). The U.S. Supreme Court found no merit in the lower courts’ justifications for maintaining the VMI male-only admission policy. Justice RUTH BADER GINSBURG , in her majority opinion, essentially agreed with the first decision of the court of appeals, which found no basis for the male-onlypolicy. In her view, “[n]either the goal of producing citizen-soldiers nor VMI’s i mplementing methodology is inher ently unsuitable to women.” Ginsburg rejected Virginia’s contention that single-sex education yields educational benefits important enough to justify the exclusion of women from VMI. The generalizations about the differences between men and women that were offered to justify the exclusion of women were suspect. According to Ginsburg, the generalizations were too broad and stereotypi- cal, and the predictions that VMI stature would suffer if women were admitted were no more than self-fulfilling prophecies. The categorical exclusion of women from VMI denied EQUAL PROTECTION to women. The categorical exclusion was unnecessary because the VMI adversative method of training could be modified without destroying the program. In Ginsburg’s view, “neither the goal of producing citizen-soldiers, VMI’s raison d’être, nor VMI’s implementing methodology is inherently unsuitable to women.” The Court was also unimpressed with the creation of the VWIL as a remedy for the constitutional violation of equal protection. Justice Ginsburg noted numerous deficiencies, pointing out that VWIL afforded women no opportunity to “experience the rigorous military training for which VMI is famed.” VWIL did not propose to use the adversative method, nor would the student body, faculty, course offerings, or facilities match VMI’s. Ginsburg called the VWIL a “pale shadow” of VMI that would lack substantial equality with the all male college . Finally, the Court rejected the appeals court’s “substantive comparability” test as PLAIN ERROR. The appellate court’s “deferential analysis” did not accord with the “heightened scrutiny” test required when allegations of sex-based discrimi- nation are made. Calling the VWIL remedy “substantially different and significantly un- equal,” Ginsburg noted that the court of appeals should have inquired as to whether the proposed remedy placed women who were denied the VMI advantage in the position they would have occupied in the absence of discrimination. The answer to this inquiry was clearly negative, thus invalidating the VWIL remedy. Ginsburg stated, “Women seeking and fit for a VMI-quality education cannot be offered anything less under the state’s obligation to afford them genuinely equal protection.” FURTHER READINGS Brodie, Laura Fairchild. 2000. Breaking Out: VMI and the Coming of Women. New York: Pantheon. Long, Barbara. 2000. United States v. Virginia: Virginia Military Institute Accepts Women. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow. VMI Operation Plans and Progress Reports. 2008. Ava- ilable online at http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedFiles/ Administration/Finance_Administration_Support/ Institute_Planning/2008%20Operation%20Plans% 20and%20Progress%20Reports.pdf; website home page: http://www.vmi.edu (accessed September 7, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Sex Discrimination; Women’s Rights. VIS [Latin, Force or violence.] A term employed in many legal phrases and maxims, such as vis injuriosa, “wrongful force.” VISA An official endorsement on a passport or other document required to secure an alien’s admission to a country. Under U.S . immigration law, an alien is any per son who is not a citizen or national of the United States. Two types of visa s exist: nonimmigrant and immigrant. The immigra- tion laws delineate specific categories of persons who may be eligible for an immigrant visa, which generally allows a person to live in the United States permanently and perhaps eventu- ally seek citizenship. Persons visiting the United States on a temporary basis to engage in an activity delineated under the nonimmigrant GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VISA 255 classifications of the federal immigration laws must generally possess a nonimmigrant visa. A visit under a nonimmigrant visa may be of very short duration or may validly last for years, depending on the classification of nonimmi- grant visa used. Immigrant visa classifications include family-sponsored immigrants, employment- based immigrants, diversity immigrants, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(15) et seq.). Immediate relatives are the children, spou se, and parents of a U.S. citizen. Only a specified number of visas may be issued in each of the first three categories each year. Demand often exceed s supply for these visas, creating a backlog. The immediate relative classification, along with certain other catego- ries, is not subject to numerical limitation (8 U.S.C.A. § 1151). A variety of nonimmigrant visa categories exist, including visitors coming to the United States for business or pleasure; ambassadors and certain diplomatic officers; crew members on board a vessel or aircraft; certain kinds of workers; fiancées or fiancé of U.S. citizens; persons with “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics”; artists and entertainers; participants in ap- proved international cultural-exchange pro- grams; and religious workers. Some nonimmi- grant visa classifications permit family members or servants to accompany the principal alien. Most immigrant visa categories require a U.S. citizen or entity to first file a visa petition on behalf of the alien. Once the visa petition is approved, the alien typically submits a visa application to the appropriate U.S. consulate. Immigrant visa applications may include a questionnaire, fingerprints, an oath and signa- ture before the consular officer, photographs, and results of a medical examination. A visa applicant might also be required to provide police or prison records, military records, and a birth certificate. The alien has the burden to establish eligibility to receive the visa. Documentation and other information needed for nonimmigrant visas vary with the type of visa sought but are generally less extensive than those required for an immigrant visa. A few categories require an approved visa petition; certain classifications require a medical exam. A nonimmigrant visa specifies the nonimmigrant classification, such as B-2 for a visitor for pleasure, and the length of time for which the visa is valid. Typically a nonimmigrant visa is evidenced by documentation placed in an alien’s passport. On the other hand, an arriving immi- grant usually surrenders the visa to the immigra- tion officer at the port of entry, who notes the date, port of entry, identity of vessel or other means of transportation, and any other informa- tion that is required under federal regulations. Possession of a valid visa does not ensure admission to the United States; an alien must still be admissible under all imm igration laws at the time of arrival. Following the SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS , officials within the federal government expressed concerns about the methods terrorists used to conduct their operations within the United States. As a result, Congress altered a number of provisions regarding visas under the USA PATRIOT ACT OF 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. The act includes restrictions on the issuance of student visas and adds conditions designed to crack down on noncitizens who have overstayed the terms of their visas. The act also mandates improvements in the use of technology to identify persons who apply for U.S. visas. Congress further increased the ability of the federal gover nment to issue and track visas within the United States by passing the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. N o. 107-173, 116 Stat. 543. The act allocated funds and personnel to develop systems and carry out policies to improve visa operations. Finally, the Immigra- tion and Naturalization Service (INS) was moved from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to the HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT because of con- cerns about the INS’s ability to monitor those in the United States on visas who might have connections to terrorist organizations. The economic crisis that began in September 2008 led Congress to provide funds to banks, insurance companies, and the U.S. auto industry. These “bailout” funds, however, came with strings attached. One string was a provision that required recipientsofbailoutfundstohireU.S.citizensover foreigners with the special visas, known as H-1Bs. Under the H-1B program, which was established in 1990, each year 85,000temporarywork visas are awarded to foreign computer technicians, engi- neers, university educators, and other highly skilled professionals. The visas are good for six years, and the workers must have, at minimum, a college degree. Many businesses argued that GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 256 VISA the new restrictions would discourage foreign workers from applying for the program. FURTHER READINGS Carrion, Ramon. 2004. U.S.A. Immigration Guide. Naper- ville, Ill.: Sphinx. Otto, Catherine Ethridge. 2002. “Tracking Immigrants in the United States: Proposed and Perceived Needs to Protect the Borders of the United States.” North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 28 (winter). Weissbrodt, David. 2005. Immigration Law and Procedure in a Nutshell.St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson West. CROSS REFERENCE Aliens. VISIBLE MEANS OF SUPPORT A term employed in VAGRANCY statutes to test whether an individual has any apparent ability to provide for himself or herself financially. A person who has no visible means of support and loiters in a public place might be arrested and prosecuted for vagrancy. VISITATION RIGHTS In a DIVORCE or custody action, permission granted by the court to a noncustodial parent to visit his or her child or children. Custody may also refer to visitation rights extended to grandparents. In a divorce where one parent is awarded sole custody of the child, the noncustodial parent is usually awarded visitation rights in the divorce decree. Visitation rights can be withheld if evidence is provi ded that proves it is in the best interest of the child not to see the parent. This usually occurs only where it has been shown that the parent is an excessive user of alcohol, a user of illegal narcotics, or is physically or verbally abusive. With the large number of divorced parents in the United States, grandparents have lobbied successfully for laws that give them rights to visit their grandchildren. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has voiced concerns about such laws and ruled one such statute unconstitutional in 2000. Visitation rights may be determined by the agreement of the parties or by a court order. If the court concludes that the parents will be cooperative, it may not issue a detailed visita- tion schedule. This means that parents mu st amicably work out reasonable times and terms that work best for both parents and child. If parents are not cooperative, the courts encour- age the drafting of a detailed schedule that leaves no doubt about the frequency of visita- tion, the days and times of pickup and return, and holiday and vacation schedules. Courts generally consider the wishes of the child when reviewing custody and visitation issues. A child’s wish may be granted but it will be dependent on the child’s age and maturity level, as well as what the court concludes is in the child’s best interests. Courts also take into consideration the fact that the custodial parent may exert UNDUE INFLUENCE over the child’s decision-making process and color the child’s supposedly independent request. As children mature they may seek an order from the court changing custody and visitation arrangements. A common problem in FAMILY LAW is when one parent uses visitation to spite the other parent. Examples include a custodial parent refusing visitation, not having the child available for the noncustodial parent at the appointed time for pickup, or a noncustodial parent not return- ing the child at the prescribed time. When a noncustodial parent encounters problems in exercising visitation rights, the parent may stop paying CHILD SUPPORT as a means of changing the custodial parent’s behavior. However, the courts do not recognize this as a valid reason for withholding support, as visitation and support are separate and discrete issu es. These circum- stances, if persistent, sometimes lead the parents back into court for resolution of the problems. When a substantial change in conduct or circumstances involving the parents occurs, the court may make permanent modifications in visitation rights. One of the parties must present clear evidence to the court of the change in conduct or circumstances. This evidence usually must be completely new to the court, as issues addressed in prior proceedings are generally not grounds for modification. Common grounds for permanent modifications include a persis- tent failure to follow the visitation schedule, repeated failure to return the child at the designated time, the teaching of immoral or illegal acts to the child, or the parent’s conviction for a crime. Visitation rights may also extend beyond parents. Every state has recognized grandpar- ents’ visitation rights in some form by amend- ing visitation statutes. Several states limit visitation to cases where the parent is deceased, while others extend the right to cases of divorce, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VISITATION RIGHTS 257 . result of the offense.” The most controversial part of VAWA was the provision giving gender-based victims of violence a CAUSE OF ACTION against their GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 248. violent offenders, and $1.8 billion to states for jailing criminal illegal immigrants. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 250 VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 Effect. nonimmigrant GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION VISA 255 classifications of the federal immigration laws must generally possess a nonimmigrant visa. A visit under a nonimmigrant visa may be of