United States v. Virginia

1996

Venue: SCOTUS
Facts: VMI doesn't admit women. They've proposed opening a parallel program: the VA Women's Institute for Leadership
Posture: District court thinks this program meets the requirements of Equal Protection. Ct. App. affirms. Appeal.
Issue: So, does this violate equal protection?
Holding: Yes. Reversed.
Rule: VA has not shown an "exceedingly persuasive" justification for excluding all women, and their proposed remedy does not cure the problem.
Reasoning: There's a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination, and women didn't always count as "we the people."

A cure for this problem would be to provide equal opportunity. This just doesn't. (reminds me of Sweatt v. Painter and US v. Fordice.

Need to show:

  1. An important government interest
  2. The discriminatory means are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives
This isn't separate but equal-- VMI is unique.
Dicta: Scalia (dissenting): The "old" constitution takes no sides in this debate. The role of the court is to prevent backsliding from the degree of restriction the constitution imposed on democratic government, not to prescribe, n our own authority, progressively higher degrees.

Oh, plus, this frustrates federalism.