Week 5: Sex Discrimination Flashcards
Intermediate scrutiny
A law invoking a sex classification must serve an important government interest, and substantially related to the achievement of those interests
Frontiero v Richardson (1973)
4 judges (but not all 5!) hold that sex constitutes strict scrutiny
United States v Virginia (1996)
Ginsburg argues that parties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification for action; uses intermediate scrutiny instead of strict scrutiny
Says that unlike race where inherent differences are not accepted, sex inherent differences can remain cause for celebration but not for the denigration of either sex for artificial constrains on an individual’s opportunity
Final decision: Single sex education is not, in this case, adequately defended by the state. VA also has a history of discriminating. Courts must take a “hard look” at generalizations and tendencies of the kind expressed by Virginia
What was Antonio Scalia’s dissent in US v Virginia?
Argued that levels of scrutiny are essential, but we have to preserve our societies values. The idea that it would be an enduring document an that if there were going to be major changes in the way policies were implemented, they would have to be done the democratic way.
Lochner v New York
cannot interfere with the right of contract between employer and employees
Meyer v State of Nebraska
these liberties may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting the public’s interest
Loving v Virginia
The freedom to marry is a basic right that goes to the pursuit of happiness to man. To deprive this is to deprive all citizens their due process in law.
Griswold v Connecticut
9th Amendment provides that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be consumed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” – rights of married peoples choices on contraception was found to be a right of privacy
