Cases Flashcards
Bradwell v. Illinois
Myra Bradwell’s application to practice law was denied bc she was married
US/IL citizen, met requirements
14th am P+I clause does not include women’s right to practice law
States set laws
Married couples are viewed as one entity
Cannot enter contracts without
husbands consent
Wide diff b/w men and women under law
rational basis used
Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Minor (female) tried to vote in St. Louis but was blocked
Women’s suffrage
Is not protected under 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause
States set their own voting laws – not the
court’s job to create law
Wouldn’t need 15th if 14th included this
“Radical change” needs express
language
rational basis used
Muller v. Oregon (1908)
Max work hours law for women
Does not violate 14th amendment due process clause liberty of contract protection
Lochner: right to contract
State can regulate conditions
Stereotypes of women/Romantic
paternalism
Should be focused on their role in
home and family
Woman dependent on man
Physically weaker and need to be
protected
Rational Basis used
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
Min wage for women + children in DC
Keep women in good health + protect their morals (fear of women becoming sex workers)
Violates the 5th am DPC
No absolute freedom of contract
BUT legally capable of negotiating pay
(19th am)
Women need max work hours
Employer burden (not being able to
pay)
Physical differences
Dissenting
Employers + employees not equal
Employers can and will abuse
employees
Law is valid
No liberty of contract in Constitution
No difference than max hours (Muller)
19th am didn’t change physical limits of
women, not enough to justify
rational basis used
Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)
Women not able to bartend unless wife/daughter of owner (MI Law)
Does not violate 14th am EPC
Protective oversight of husbands/fathers
Line drawn between waitressing and
bartending (by MI)
Reasonable law
Dissent
Arbitrary
EPC requires no invidious distinctions in
the law
Rational Basis used
Hoyt v. FL (1961)
Hoyt convicted by all male jury for murder.
Opt-in jury service for women
Does not violate 14th am EPC
State did not purposely exclude women
“spared the obligation”
Exemption is a “privilege”
“good faith” effort made to include
women
Reasonable
Not same as racial exclusion
Administrative convenience
Paperwork would be too much if
women brought in
Rational Basis used
Taylor v. LA (1975)
Opt-in jury service for women
Taylor: kidnapping (male defendant) / Healy: hair product (female plaintiff)
Reinforced stereotypes
Women do not have full civic rights/duties
– views not needed in courtroom
Violates 6th am right to jury trial
Overrules Hoyt
Defendant need not be member of
excluded group
“fair cross-section of community”
6th am
Dissent
Hoyt was only 12 years ago
Standard for race not applicable to sex
discrimination cases
Rational Basis used
Reed v. Reed (1971)
Dispute over who would administer son’s estate
State law – males preferred to females when otherwise equal
Violates 14th am EPC
Law not neutral on its face
Reasonable, not arbitrary
Fair and substantial relation
State not interested enough in reducing
workload
Rational Basis used
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Lt in Air Force, husband full time student
Denied dependent benefits
Policy: she must show he’s 50% dependent
on her (husbands had no similar reqs)
Violates 5th am DPC
Immutable characteristics
Suspect classification
Administrative convenience not sufficient
ERA, if adopted, will resolve
Dissent
Administrative nightmare
Too costly – gov has legitimate interest
Strict Scrutiny used
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Buy beer at 18 (women) and 21 (men)
OK Law
Looks at alcohol related accidents
Violates 14th am EPC
Public safety
Under and over inclusive
Tenuous relationship between gender and
traffic safety
21st am power is broad, law is irrational
Legitimate state interest, means not
substantially related
Intermediate Scrutiny
Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan (1982)
Hogan denied entrance to nursing program at MUV
2 other in state, wanted to attend one in
his town
Violates 14th am EPC
Stereotype – nursing for women
“Important gov interest”/means
“substantially related”
Program character will not change, no
proof women lagged in field of nursing
State explanation not “exceedingly
persuasive”
Dissent
Only applies to nursing program
No right to attend college in hometown
2 other options
Single sex ed reflect individual preferences
Intermediate Scrutiny used
US v. VA (1996)
Female high school student denied at VMI
Virginia military academy
Male only
VWIL
Parallel program for women at Mary
Baldwin
Violates 14th am EPC, VWIL not an adequate remedy
Important objectives/substantially related
Justification must be genuine not post hoc
Physical difference not used to create
inferiority
Some women could meet physical
demands
State does not have an exceedingly
persuasive justification
Craig – intermediate scrutiny
“Exceedingly persuasive” not part of
the test
Dissent
All male “essential to the institutions
character”
Court does not use intermediate scrutiny
VMI served VA for over a century and a
half
Intermediate Scrutiny
Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)
Draft, men aged 18-25
Does not violate 5th am DPC
National defense – most deference (to
Congress)
Extensively considered by Congress
Exclusion not an accident due to
by products
Draft for combat
Dissent
Women draft for non-combat roles
Misapplies int. scrutiny
Based on combat eligibility
“Gov must show registering women would
implode its efforts”
Intermediate Scrutiny used
Personnel Admin v. Feeney (1979)
Helen Feeney – denied a civil position
Preference given to vets over non-vets (MA
Law)
Does not violate 14th am EPC
Gender neutral on its face
Purpose not to discriminate
Discrimination against women in the
military not on trial here
May be unwise but does not violate
Reward veterans for service (Males clearly
benefit as a class)
# of men disadvantaged is also large
Dissent
Int. scrutiny would strike down
Burden should be state
Gender-based civil service hierarchy in
state
Rational Basis used
