In United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court ruled that violence against women

• A. was not an appropriate focus of punitive damages.
• B. did not substantially affect interstate commerce.
• C. could not be made the responsibility of distant relatives.
• D. was nonjusticiable.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause to regulate non-economic social harms. In United States v. Morrison, the Court held that gender‑motivated violence does not constitute an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, so a federal civil remedy for such violence exceeds Congress’s commerce power. The majority emphasized that for regulation to fit under the Commerce Clause, there must be a substantial connection to interstate commerce, and simply labeling an act as a social ill does not automatically place it within federal regulatory reach when the activity itself isn’t an economic one with a clear, nationwide impact.

So, the best choice captures that the violence against women did not substantially affect interstate commerce, which is why the specific federal remedy in question was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The other options don’t fit because Morrison was about congressional power under commerce, not punitive damages, not about blaming distant relatives, and it was a constitutional issue that the case could be decided on rather than a matter of nonjusticiability.