Issue 1 Court Cases

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)

Q: Did federal law, defining differing criteria for male/female spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate women, violating the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause?

C: Yes, dissimilar treatment for men and women who are in similar situations violates Due Process Clause/EPC requirements implied, and creating differing statuses for gender violates the Constitution

Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975)

Q: Whether a federal statute that gave female naval officers a longer time to achieve promotion than male naval officers constituted unconstitutional gender discrimination

C: No, differences of 6382 and 6401 are rational, doesn’t violate the Due Process Clause. Female line officers do not have opportunities for professional service compared to male line officers; women have overall restrictions on participating in combat and most sea duty. The longer period of tenure aligns with the goal of providing female officers with fair and equitable career advancement programs.

Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)

Q: Did the law discriminate against women and violate the EPC of the 14th Amendment??

C: No, the law is enacted to serve legitimate and worthy purposes, and does not discriminate on the basis of sex; only a few women may benefit, but veteran status is not only for males.

Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)

Q: Does the Louisiana law that gives the husband sole control over marital property violate the EPC of the 14th Amendment?

C: Yes, the law violates the EPC. The law discriminated on the basis of sex, treating husbands and wives differently in terms of shared property. Both spouses must have equal rights in managing marital property.

US v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)

Q: Does Virginia’s creation of a women’s-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the 14th Amendment’s EPC?

C: No, VMI’s male-only admissions policy is unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment’s EPC

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

Q: Does the UMich Law School’s use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the EPC of the 14th Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act?

C: No, the Law School’s intention of using race to further compelling interest in getting educational benefits from a diverse student body is enough

SFFA v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023)

Q: Can institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? If so, does Harvard’s race-conscious admissions violate Title VI of Civil Rights Act?

C: Harvard admissions program violates EPC of the 14th Amendment

SFFA v. The United States Naval Academy, 707 F. Supp. 3d 486 (District Court of Maryland, 2024)

Q: Is the Naval Academy’s consideration of race in admissions constitutional under the EPC/Title VI when applied to federal institutions with a unique mission?

C: Yes, the Naval Academy’s consideration is constitutional