O ne of the most controversial, and far-reaching, sections of the first Violence Against Women Act has been found to be constitutional by six federal district or appeals courts. The Civil Rights Remedies for Gender-Motivated Violence provision proclaims that "all persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender," and allows victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in civil court and collect monetary damages.

Victims of racially-motivated crimes have been able to use a civil-rights remedy for a century; however, the Civil Rights provision of VAWA I was the first time that Congress recognized gender-based violence as something victims could sue for and receive damages. This provision was immediately attacked in court as unconstitutional.

According to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, seven women have sued their attackers under this provision. Doe v. Doe and Seaton v. Seaton both involve women suing their husbands for domestic violence. Anisimov v. Lake, Crisonino v. New York City Housing Authority, and Mattison v. Click Corporation involve women suing their employers or supervisors for gender-motivated violence on the job. In Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic, a woman sued her attackers and the university after being gang-raped by two students. In Doe v. Father Hartz, a woman sued her parish priest for sexual misconduct.

Out of these cases, federal district judges in six ruled that the law is constitutional, and that Congress does have the authority to pass a law that allows women this kind of relief. The federal district judge in Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic ruled that the law is not constitutional, but a federal appeals court overturned that ruling. None of the cases has yet gone to trial on the merits of the case -- in other words, in none of the cases have the women victims had the chance to present evidence to prove that the crime was gender-motivated. The law will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.