Craig v. Boren
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Craig v. Boren | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||
| Argued October 5, 1976 Decided December 20, 1976 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||
| To regulate in a sex-discriminatory fashion, the government must demonstrate that its use of sex-based criteria is substantially related to the achievement of important governmental objectives. | |||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens |
|||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||
| Majority by: Brennan Joined by: White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens Concurrence by: Blackmun Dissent by: Burger Dissent by: Rehnquist |
|||||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |||||||||||
Craig v. Boren, , was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications had to be subjected to an intermediate standard of judicial review. (For more on different Equal Protection review standards, see the appropriate section in the article on the Equal Protection Clause.)
Contents |
[edit] Facts
Oklahoma passed a statute prohibiting the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21, but allowed females over the age of 18 to purchase it. The statute was challenged as Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection violation by Curtis Craig, a male who was over 18 but under 21, and by an Oklahoma vendor of alcohol.
[edit] Issue
The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the enactment of different drinking ages for men and women violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
[edit] Result
Justice William J. Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which he was joined by Justices White, Marshall, Powell and Stevens. The Court held that the gender classifications made by the Oklahoma statute were unconstitutional because the statistics relied on by the state were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the statute and the benefits intended to stem from it. Furthermore, the Court found that analysis of the Equal Protection Clause in this case had not been changed by the subsequent passage of the Twenty-first Amendment.
Justice Blackmun wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that a higher standard of scrutiny was appropriate.
[edit] Dissent
Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist dissented. Rehnquist dissented because he felt that the law only needed to pass the “rational basis” analysis.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (full text with links to cited material)
