Sex Discrimination

TAYLOR V LOUISIANA

Holding: Can’t make jury service optional for women.

BRADWELL V ILLINOIS*

Facts: P passed Illinois bar exam; not admitted to bar because married → could not make binding contracts with her clints 

Holding: Women did not have right to work as lawyer

Reasoning: The “timidity” of the female sex makes it unfit for some occupations.

REED V REED

Facts: When someone died without a will, Idaho state law determined who would be administrator of estate; gave preference to men over women

Holding: Violated 14th Amendment ~ only reason provided was there was no rational relationship between the law and its objectives

• First time court struck down law distinguishing between and women

CRAIG V BOREN*

Facts: Oklahoma law allowed women to buy light beer at 18, but men had to wait until 21.

Holding: Unconstitutional; classifications by gender must serve important government objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives

• NOTE: Above standard now intermediate scrutiny

  • Asks whether law is substantially related to an important interest

    • Ex: discrim on basis of sex, laws restricting time/place/manner of speech

US V VIRGINIA*

Facts: Virginia Military Institute, public military college, was only for men. Produces “citizen-soldier,” super intense program. Hundreds of inquiries from women for enrollment, all ignored. Alternative school for women differed in offerings.

Holding: Fails intermediate scrutiny; Ginsburg used language of “exceedingly persuasive justification”

BALLARD V US

Holding: While supposed “inherent differences” no longer okay for ground for classifications, physical differences between sexes are enduring.

MISSOURI V ASHCROFT

Holding: Age discrimination does not have heightened scrutiny; can have mandatory retirement ages for judges

(PROBLEM) SPRINGFIELD RESIDENTS PROMOTING EQUALITY V CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ~ 8th circuit fed court (not SC)

Facts: Law criminalizing nudity, specifies the female breast/nipple

Result/Holding: Law upheld, substantially related to the important government interest of promoting public decency.

(PROBLEM) US V SKRMETTI

Facts: SB1 prohibits doctors from giving puberty blockers/hormones to any minor for the purpose of enabling sex transition / dealing with gender identity discomfort.

Holding: The law is not about sex-based discrimination, it is about age based discrimination; passed rational basis review