In United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), a female student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute sued two male students in federal district court, alleging that their assault and repeated rape of her violated 42 United States Code section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. (Id. at pp. 604- 605.) The district court dismissed the female student's complaint on the ground that Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the commerce clause of the United States Constitution or section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. ( Morrison, at pp. 604-605.) The court of appeals upheld the district court's conclusion that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the civil remedy of section 13981. (Id. at p. 605.) The United States Supreme Court explained that "we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds." ( United States v. Morrison, supra, 529 U.S. at p. 607.) The court adopted the following holding from States v. Lopez (1995) 514 U.S. 549: " 'Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.' " ( Id. at p. 610.) "Lopez's review of Commerce Clause case law demonstrates that in those cases where we have sustained federal regulation of intrastate activity based upon the activity's substantial effects on interstate commerce, the activity in question has been some sort of economic endeavor." ( Id. at p. 611.) Accordingly, since gender-motivated crimes of violence "are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity," 42 United States Code section 13981 was not justified under the commerce clause. ( Id. at p. 613.) The Morrison court further held that the statute at issue there could not be considered a constitutional exercise of Congress's remedial power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. ( United States v. Morrison, supra, 529 U.S. at p. 627.) It explained that section 5 authorizes Congress to "enforce" by "appropriate legislation" the constitutional guarantee against state deprivation of a person's " ' "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" ' " and against the denial of a person's " ' "equal protection of the laws." ' " (Morrison, at p. 619, 120 S. Ct. at p. 1755.) The court pointed out that 42 United States Code section 13981 "is not aimed at proscribing discrimination by officials which the Fourteenth Amendment might not itself proscribe; it is directed not at any State or state actor, but at individuals who have committed criminal acts motivated by gender bias." ( Id. at p. 626.) Accordingly, "Congress' power under 5 does not extend to the enactment of 13981." ( Id. at p. 627.)