US v. VA (1996)

Question 1

US v. VA (1996)
Facts

Answer 1

Female high school student denied admission to VMI
VMI
Male only military institute
VWIL
Parallel program for women at Mary Baldwin College

Question 2

US v. VA (1996)
Issue

Answer 2

Does VMI male only admission violate 14th amendment equal protection clause?
If so, is VWIL program for women an adequate remedy?

Question 3

US v. VA (1996)
Ruling

Answer 3

Yes, violates 14th amendment
No, not an adequate remedy

Question 4

US v. VA (1996)
Majority (Ginsburg)

Answer 4

Important objectives/substantially related
Justification must be genuine not post hoc
Physical difference not used to create inferiority
State does not have an exceedingly persuasive justification
State
Diversity in education would have to modify adversative approach
Some women could meet physical demands
VMI – tangible + intangible factors
VWIL – lacks rigorous military training, no “barracks” life, etc.

Question 5

US v. VA (1996)
Concurring (Rehnquist)

Answer 5

Craig – intermediate scrutiny
“exceedingly persuasive” not part of the test
All male school without equivalent violates the equal protection clause

Question 6

US v. VA (1996)
Dissenting (Scalia)

Answer 6

Served VA for over a century and a half
All male “essential to the institutions character”
Court does not use intermediate scrutiny
Let democratic process decide
Self-righteous supreme court