Admittedly, I've not done any personal research on the matter. All my impressions are simply formulated from perusing Galloway's paper and my own knowledge of the Morrison decision, but I have some concerns.

What precisely is the committee's intent in including Morrison? I'm not convinced that this case is the best way to access debates about either interstate commerce/federalism questions or gender issues. Morrison didn't really break new ground in terms of the commerce clause. The court used the same test it used in Lopez, Ollie's BBQ, and some other case I forgot. The test allows Congress to regulate activity that when taken in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The court held that gender-based violence in the aggregate didn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Overruling the case wouldn't necessarily represent a major change in the Court's commerce clause jurisprudence if Lopez and Ollie's remain good law. Changing the course of the Court's commerce clause jurisprudence would require striking down a line of case law that began before Morrison.

As for gender issues, the civil remedy provisions of VAWA were struck down and are not good law. Overturning Morrison does not resurrect these provisions of VAWA. It is far from certain in the current political climate that Congress would try to reenact such remedies. My problem with the international implications that Galloway cites is that none of this evidence seems to be reverse causal, i.e. restoring Morrison is not likely to restore US credibility on gender issues. The cards that talk about the potential international implications are from briefs written prior to when the decision was handed down. I'm wholly unconvinced that there would be major international perception of a Court ruling striking down Morrison. It wouldn't change the politics of the current administration or affect anything in a substantive way unless Congress decides to enact a new statute that includes civil remedies for gender violence. The case would just be a minor expansion of Congress's authority under the commerce clause but seemingly wouldn't change the basic manner in which the Court considers commerce clause questions. Maybe some people say there would be international implications but my gut tells me they're lying.
 

Based on what was said at the TC I think this case is really interesting and sort of fits what Repko described as liberal cases meant to be an affirmative. I can see critical teams running very persuasive arguments about gender violence and also teams running this straight up with federalism or modeling issues. A quick lexis search yielded countless articles, which means there can be both innovation and depth to this topic.
 

Morrison should definitely be included. This is an extremely important case that has interesting ties to federalism. While it does not necessarily best access the federalism debate it is probably the best (if not one of the best) cases to access gender violence.

Also, just a thought but if you wanted to have a resolution that listed cases with some common thread why not use federalism? There are numerous federalism cases that access the environment, gender, glbt rights, executive power, etc, etc...This would allow generic federalism/states rights questions to be addressed and be open for stable negative ground while providing diverse "impact" areas in terms of aff flex.