116 S. Ct. 2264; 135 L. Ed. 2d 735; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 4259; 64 U.S.L.W. 4638; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4694; 96 Daily Journal DAR 7573; 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 93
Case history
Prior
Judgment for defendants, 766 F. Supp. 1407 (W.D. Va. 1991) vacated, 976 F.2d 890 (4th Cir. 1992), certiorari denied, 508 U.S. 946 (1993), on remand, judgment for defendants, 852 F. Supp. 471 (W.D. Va. 1994), aff'd, 44 F.3d 1229 (4th Cir. 1995), motion for rehearing en banc denied, 52 F.3d 90 (4th Cir. 1995), certiorari granted 516 U.S. 910 (1995).
Holding
Parties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for that action.
Virginia's categorical exclusion of women from the educational opportunities VMI provides denies equal protection to women.
The remedy proffered by Virginia-maintain VMI as a male-only college and create VWIL as a separate program for women-does not cure the constitutional violation.
Justice Ginsburg found, however, that the VWIL would not provide women with the same type of rigorous military training, facilities, courses, faculty, financial opportunities, and alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords male cadets, a decision evocative of Sweatt v. Painter (1950), in which the Court ruled that segregated law schools in Texas were unconstitutional, since a newly formed black law school clearly did not provide the same benefits to its students as the state's prestigious and long-maintained white law school.[1] In her opinion, she stated: "The VWIL program is a pale shadow of VMI in terms of the range of curricular choices and faculty stature, funding, prestige, alumni support and influence."[3]
Rehnquist concurrence
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a concurrence agreeing to strike down the male-only admissions policy of the Virginia Military Institute, as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.[3] However, he declined to join the majority opinion's basis for using the Fourteenth Amendment, writing: "Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation."[3] This rationale supported separate but equal facilities separated on the basis of sex: "[I]t is not the 'exclusion of women' that violates the Equal Protection Clause, but the maintenance of an all-men school without providing any—much less a comparable—institution for women ... It would be a sufficient remedy, I think, if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber."[3]
Scalia dissent
Justice Scalia's lone dissent argued that the standard applied by the majority was closer to a strict scrutiny standard than the intermediate scrutiny standard applied to previous cases involving equal protection based on sex. Notably, however, the opinion for the Court eschewed either standard; its language did not comport with the "important governmental interest" formula used in prior intermediate scrutiny cases. Scalia argued: "[I]f the question of the applicable standard of review for sex-based classifications were to be regarded as an appropriate subject for reconsideration, the stronger argument would be not for elevating the standard to strict scrutiny, but for reducing it to rational-basis review."[1]
Scalia made sure to provide Ginsburg with a copy of his dissent as quickly as he could, in order for her to better respond to it in her majority opinion.[4][5] Ginsburg later recalled that Scalia "absolutely ruined my weekend, but my opinion is ever so much better because of his stinging dissent".[6]
Aftermath
As the senior justice, Sandra Day O'Connor could have written the opinion, but in an act of generosity, demurred, saying, "This should be Ruth's."[7][8] With the VMI decision, the high court effectively struck down any law which, as Justice Ginsburg wrote, "denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature — equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society."[3] Nina Tonenberg, journalist and legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio, hailed Ginsburg's majority opinion as "the jewel in the crown of Ginsburg majority opinions".[8] Professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law Steve Vladeck was highly positive of the Ginsburg decision: "The majority opinion in the VMI case is perhaps the best-known and most important majority opinion Justice Ginsburg has penned in her 24 years on the Supreme Court. That case, more than any other, epitomized the justices’ effort to establish true sex equality as a fundamental constitutional norm, and its effects are continuing to reverberate today."[9]
Following the ruling, VMI contemplated going private to exempt itself from the 14th Amendment, and thus this ruling. The Department of Defense warned the school that it would withdraw all ROTC programs from the school if this privatization took place. As a result of the DOD action, Congress amended 10 U.S.C. § 2111a, to prohibit the military from withdrawing or diminishing any ROTC program at one of the six senior military colleges, including VMI.[10] However, VMI's Board of Visitors had already voted 9–8 to admit women and did not revisit the issue after the law was amended.[1]
VMI was the last all-male public university in the United States.[1][11] Justice Ginsburg told cadets of the Virginia Military Institute in 2018 that she knew her opinion “would make VMI a better place”.[9] She also thought that those who were initially opposed would learn from their women classmates “how much good women could do for the institution.” [9]
^ abcdefPhilippa Strum (2002). Women in the Barracks: The Vmi Case and Equal Rights. University Press of Kansas. ISBN0-7006-1164-9.
^Biskupic, Joan (June 27, 1996). "Supreme Court Invalidates Exclusion of Women by VMI". The Washington Post. from the original on May 27, 2016. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
^ abcde"United States v. Virginia :: 518 U.S. 515 (1996) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center". Justia Law.
^Senior, Jennifer (September 22, 2020). "The Ginsburg-Scalia Act Was Not a Farce". The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-09-22.
^Brady, Terri (December 4, 2020). . The University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Archived from the original on February 14, 2023. Retrieved February 14, 2023.
^Carmon, Irin (February 13, 2016). "What made the friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg work". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-09-22.
^Hirshman, Linda (September 1, 2015). Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World. Harper. ISBN978-0062238467.
^ abTotenberg, Nina (September 1, 2015). "Author Interviews: Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Sandra Day O'Connor, 'Sisters In Law'". National Public Radio. National Public Radio. Archived from the original on March 20, 2022. Retrieved March 20, 2022.
^ abcEhrlich, Jamie (September 18, 2020). . CNN. Archived from the original on February 14, 2023. Retrieved February 14, 2023.
^"United States Code § 2111a. Support for senior military colleges". Retrieved 13 August 2011.
^. Justia. Archived from the original on January 21, 2023. Retrieved January 21, 2023.
Further reading
Bowsher, David K. (November 1998). "Cracking the Code of United States v. Virginia". Duke Law Journal. Duke University School of Law. 48 (2): 305–339. doi:10.2307/1373108. JSTOR 1373108.
Stobaugh, Heather L. (Fall 2002). "The Aftermath of United States v. Virginia: Why Five Justices are Pulling in the Reins on the 'Exceedingly Persuasive Justification'". SMU Law Review. 55 (4): 1755–1779. ISSN 1066-1271. Retrieved 23 December 2012.
Strum, Philippa (2002). Women in the Barracks: The VMI Case and Equal Rights. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas. ISBN0-7006-1164-9. OCLC 47849408.
Stockel, Eric J. (1996). "Note, United States v. Virginia: Does Intermediate Scrutiny Still Exist?" 13 TOURO L. REV. 229 (1996)
External links
Text of United States v. Virginia, 518U.S. 515 (1996) is available from:CornellFindlawJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
March 15, 2023
united, states, virginia, 1996, landmark, case, which, supreme, court, united, states, struck, down, long, standing, male, only, admission, policy, virginia, military, institute, decision, justice, clarence, thomas, whose, enrolled, university, time, recused, . United States v Virginia 518 U S 515 1996 is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the long standing male only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute VMI in a 7 1 decision Justice Clarence Thomas whose son was enrolled at the university at the time recused himself 1 United States v VirginiaSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued January 17 1996Decided June 26 1996Full case nameUnited States v Virginia et al Citations518 U S 515 more 116 S Ct 2264 135 L Ed 2d 735 1996 U S LEXIS 4259 64 U S L W 4638 96 Cal Daily Op Service 4694 96 Daily Journal DAR 7573 10 Fla L Weekly Fed S 93Case historyPriorJudgment for defendants 766 F Supp 1407 W D Va 1991 vacated 976 F 2d 890 4th Cir 1992 certiorari denied 508 U S 946 1993 on remand judgment for defendants 852 F Supp 471 W D Va 1994 aff d 44 F 3d 1229 4th Cir 1995 motion for rehearing en banc denied 52 F 3d 90 4th Cir 1995 certiorari granted 516 U S 910 1995 HoldingParties who seek to defend gender based government action must demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification for that action Virginia s categorical exclusion of women from the educational opportunities VMI provides denies equal protection to women The remedy proffered by Virginia maintain VMI as a male only college and create VWIL as a separate program for women does not cure the constitutional violation Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerCase opinionsMajorityGinsburg joined by Stevens O Connor Kennedy Souter BreyerConcurrenceRehnquistDissentScaliaThomas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case Laws appliedU S Const amend XIV Contents 1 Majority decision 1 1 Rehnquist concurrence 1 2 Scalia dissent 2 Aftermath 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External linksMajority decision EditWriting for the majority Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found that VMI had failed to show exceedingly persuasive justification for its sex based admissions policy violating the Fourteenth Amendment s Equal Protection Clause 2 In an attempt to satisfy equal protection requirements the state of Virginia had proposed a parallel program for women called the Virginia Women s Institute for Leadership VWIL located at Mary Baldwin College a private liberal arts women s college 1 Justice Ginsburg found however that the VWIL would not provide women with the same type of rigorous military training facilities courses faculty financial opportunities and alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords male cadets a decision evocative of Sweatt v Painter 1950 in which the Court ruled that segregated law schools in Texas were unconstitutional since a newly formed black law school clearly did not provide the same benefits to its students as the state s prestigious and long maintained white law school 1 In her opinion she stated The VWIL program is a pale shadow of VMI in terms of the range of curricular choices and faculty stature funding prestige alumni support and influence 3 Rehnquist concurrence Edit Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a concurrence agreeing to strike down the male only admissions policy of the Virginia Military Institute as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment s Equal Protection Clause 3 However he declined to join the majority opinion s basis for using the Fourteenth Amendment writing Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women and followed through on such a plan it might well have avoided an equal protection violation 3 This rationale supported separate but equal facilities separated on the basis of sex I t is not the exclusion of women that violates the Equal Protection Clause but the maintenance of an all men school without providing any much less a comparable institution for women It would be a sufficient remedy I think if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber 3 Scalia dissent Edit Justice Scalia s lone dissent argued that the standard applied by the majority was closer to a strict scrutiny standard than the intermediate scrutiny standard applied to previous cases involving equal protection based on sex Notably however the opinion for the Court eschewed either standard its language did not comport with the important governmental interest formula used in prior intermediate scrutiny cases Scalia argued I f the question of the applicable standard of review for sex based classifications were to be regarded as an appropriate subject for reconsideration the stronger argument would be not for elevating the standard to strict scrutiny but for reducing it to rational basis review 1 Scalia made sure to provide Ginsburg with a copy of his dissent as quickly as he could in order for her to better respond to it in her majority opinion 4 5 Ginsburg later recalled that Scalia absolutely ruined my weekend but my opinion is ever so much better because of his stinging dissent 6 Aftermath EditAs the senior justice Sandra Day O Connor could have written the opinion but in an act of generosity demurred saying This should be Ruth s 7 8 With the VMI decision the high court effectively struck down any law which as Justice Ginsburg wrote denies to women simply because they are women full citizenship stature equal opportunity to aspire achieve participate in and contribute to society 3 Nina Tonenberg journalist and legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio hailed Ginsburg s majority opinion as the jewel in the crown of Ginsburg majority opinions 8 Professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law Steve Vladeck was highly positive of the Ginsburg decision The majority opinion in the VMI case is perhaps the best known and most important majority opinion Justice Ginsburg has penned in her 24 years on the Supreme Court That case more than any other epitomized the justices effort to establish true sex equality as a fundamental constitutional norm and its effects are continuing to reverberate today 9 Following the ruling VMI contemplated going private to exempt itself from the 14th Amendment and thus this ruling The Department of Defense warned the school that it would withdraw all ROTC programs from the school if this privatization took place As a result of the DOD action Congress amended 10 U S C 2111a to prohibit the military from withdrawing or diminishing any ROTC program at one of the six senior military colleges including VMI 10 However VMI s Board of Visitors had already voted 9 8 to admit women and did not revisit the issue after the law was amended 1 VMI was the last all male public university in the United States 1 11 Justice Ginsburg told cadets of the Virginia Military Institute in 2018 that she knew her opinion would make VMI a better place 9 She also thought that those who were initially opposed would learn from their women classmates how much good women could do for the institution 9 See also EditMississippi University for Women v Hogan List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 518 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volumeReferences Edit a b c d e f Philippa Strum 2002 Women in the Barracks The Vmi Case and Equal Rights University Press of Kansas ISBN 0 7006 1164 9 Biskupic Joan June 27 1996 Supreme Court Invalidates Exclusion of Women by VMI The Washington Post Archived from the original on May 27 2016 Retrieved July 12 2016 a b c d e United States v Virginia 518 U S 515 1996 Justia U S Supreme Court Center Justia Law Senior Jennifer September 22 2020 The Ginsburg Scalia Act Was Not a Farce The New York Times Retrieved 2020 09 22 Brady Terri December 4 2020 How the Notorious R B G Used Persuasion to Advance Equality The University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy Archived from the original on February 14 2023 Retrieved February 14 2023 Carmon Irin February 13 2016 What made the friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg work The Washington Post Retrieved 2020 09 22 Hirshman Linda September 1 2015 Sisters in Law How Sandra Day O Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World Harper ISBN 978 0062238467 a b Totenberg Nina September 1 2015 Author Interviews Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Sandra Day O Connor Sisters In Law National Public Radio National Public Radio Archived from the original on March 20 2022 Retrieved March 20 2022 a b c Ehrlich Jamie September 18 2020 Ruth Bader Ginsburg s most notable Supreme Court decisions and dissents CNN Archived from the original on February 14 2023 Retrieved February 14 2023 United States Code 2111a Support for senior military colleges Retrieved 13 August 2011 United States v Virginia 518 U S 515 1996 Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations Justia Archived from the original on January 21 2023 Retrieved January 21 2023 Further reading EditBowsher David K November 1998 Cracking the Code of United States v Virginia Duke Law Journal Duke University School of Law 48 2 305 339 doi 10 2307 1373108 JSTOR 1373108 Stobaugh Heather L Fall 2002 The Aftermath of United States v Virginia Why Five Justices are Pulling in the Reins on the Exceedingly Persuasive Justification SMU Law Review 55 4 1755 1779 ISSN 1066 1271 Retrieved 23 December 2012 Strum Philippa 2002 Women in the Barracks The VMI Case and Equal Rights Lawrence Kan University Press of Kansas ISBN 0 7006 1164 9 OCLC 47849408 Stockel Eric J 1996 Note United States v Virginia Does Intermediate Scrutiny Still Exist 13 TOURO L REV 229 1996 External links EditText of United States v Virginia 518 U S 515 1996 is available from Cornell Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Virginia amp oldid 1144687575, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
