Craig v. Boren

Last updated

Craig v. Boren
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 1976
Decided December 20, 1976
Full case nameCraig et al. v. Boren, Governor of Oklahoma, et al.
Citations429 U.S. 190 ( more )
97 S. Ct. 451; 50 L. Ed. 2d 397; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 183
Case history
PriorDismissed, Walker v. Hall, 399 F. Supp. 1304 (W.D. Okla. 1975), probable jurisdiction noted sub. nom., Craig v. Boren, 423 U.S. 1047(1976).
SubsequentRehearing denied, 429 U.S. 1124(1977).
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 Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens; Blackmun (all but Part III–D)
ConcurrencePowell
ConcurrenceStevens
ConcurrenceBlackmun (in part)
ConcurrenceStewart (in judgment)
DissentBurger
DissentRehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. [1] The case was argued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while she was working for the American Civil Liberties Union. [2]

Contents

Background

Oklahoma passed a statute prohibiting the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 but allowed females over the age of 18 to purchase it.

Legislation in Oklahoma

Oklahoma was the first state not to ratify the ERA [3] (Equal Rights Amendment) which allowed for gender discrimination to remain legal. The treatment of sex in relation to alcoholic beverages was set by the precedent in a 1948 case, Goesarert v. Cleary. [4] Throughout this case, it was revealed that stereotypes and predictions of how men and women will act is unfair. There were claims such as “males drive more, drink more, and commit more alcohol related crimes” [4] that stood as the deciders for these rulings.

Curtis Craig was a Freshman in College at Oklahoma State University during the time where this case was tried. [3] Both Curtis Craig and Carolyn Whitener were friends of a man named Mark Walker who was one of the first people to challenge the law. Ironically, Walker died in a car crash in a drunk driving incident. When Curtis turned 21, Whitener became the sole plaintiff. [3]

The Honk N Holler was a drive-in convenience store that was owned by Carolyn Whitener. [5] She credits the idea for this to Mark Walker. She claims it was his idea before the drunk driving incident. The Honk N Holler planned the lengthy struggle against discriminatory law.

Argument for the petitioner

The statute was challenged as a Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause violation by Curtis Craig, a male who was over 18 but under 21, and Carolyn Whitener, an Oklahoma vendor of alcohol. [6]

The plaintiff argument, originally pioneered by Mark Walker, was carried on by Curtis Craig and then taken on by Honk and Holler owner Carolyn Whitener, after Craig turned 21. Curtis Craig at the age of 18 would go to different 7/11’s and ask to buy 3.2% beer only to be told no. [5] He instead would have to have a girl buy him the beer as she only had to be 18 to do so. [6] Craig argued, “If 18 year olds can fight for their country and have the right to vote, why should they be discriminated against as persons drinking 3.2 beer.” [6] Craig also argued that the state should be required to prove the distinction in gender served “compelling state interest”, a test only used in race discrimination cases before.

Whitener built on this by claiming the statutory gender provisions that apply to alcohol vendors in the distribution of alcohol incur economic injury on the vendor as they are either not able to sell to a wider audience or suffer economic sanctions if they violate the Oklahoma law. [7] She advocated for the rights of third parties, like Curtis Craig, seeking access to their market by stating “vendors may resist efforts to restrict their operations." [7]

Both Craig and Whitener used a 1971 Supreme Court case, Reed v. Reed , in which the Oklahoma legislature had equalized the age for the purchase of alcohol, setting both at 18, but changed it when they faced a challenge from anti-liquor forces. [8] Reed set the precedent that classification by gender must substantially further important government objectives, which Craig and Whitener used to claim Oklahoma did not meet the requirements to impose their alcohol law based on that precedent. [9]

Response from the respondent

The nominal defendant was David Boren, who was sued ex officio by virtue of his serving as Governor of Oklahoma at the time of the lawsuit. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, working as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, advised the plaintiff's attorney, submitted an amicus brief, and was present at the counsel table during oral argument before the Supreme Court. [10]

Involvement of the ACLU Women's Rights Project

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth Bader Ginsburg hearing.jpg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg

This case was part of Ginsburg's work with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. [2]

The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a statute that denied the sale of beer to individuals of the same age based on their gender violated the Equal Protection Clause. Also, the Supreme Court examined for jus tertii (third-party rights), in this case, the vendor of the 3.2% beer.

Decision

Justice William J. Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court in which he was joined by justices White, Marshall, Powell and Stevens (Justice Blackmun joined all but one part of the opinion, and Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and Stewart wrote concurrences). [1]

Majority opinion

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.

The Court instituted a standard, dubbed "intermediate scrutiny," under which the state must prove the existence of specific important governmental objectives, and the law must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.

As to third-party rights, the court, expanding on the doctrine of standing, held that the vendors of 3.2% beer would be economically affected by the restrictive nature of the sales to males between 18 and 20. To have standing, one must show a "nexus" of the injury to oneself and the constitutional violation of the statute. In this case, the statute directly affected Whitener only economically, but the Supreme Court explained that Whitener and other vendors have standing to assert the concomitant rights of other parties, such as Craig.

The Court acknowledged that parties economically affected by regulations may challenge them "by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function."

Concurring opinion

Justice Blackmun wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that a higher standard of scrutiny was appropriate. Blackmun disagreed with the discussion of the Twenty-First Amendment. [11]

Dissenting opinions

Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist dissented.

Rehnquist dissented because he felt that the law needed to pass only "rational basis," as previous cases in the area, such as Stanton v. Stanton , had used only the "rational basis" test.

Burger was "in general agreement with Mr. Justice Rehnquist's dissent" but penned a separate dissent to emphasize that "a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities." He felt that the indirect economic injury to Whitener and other vendors introduced "a new concept of constitutional standing to which I cannot subscribe."

Subsequent

As a result of Craig v. Boren and Reed v. Reed, Congress later passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act which penalized states 10% of their allotted Federal highway funds if they had a minimum drinking age below 21. This act was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole .

See also

Sources

Related Research Articles

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protected a right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and caused an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1933 amendment repealing the 18th amendment, thereby ending prohibition of alcohol in the US

The Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide prohibition on alcohol. The Twenty-first Amendment was proposed by the 72nd Congress on February 20, 1933, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a prior amendment, as well as being the only amendment to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1993 to 2020

Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1993 until her death in 2020. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton to replace retiring justice Byron White, and at the time was viewed as a moderate consensus-builder. Ginsburg was the first Jewish woman and the second woman to serve on the Court, after Sandra Day O'Connor. During her tenure, Ginsburg authored the majority opinions in cases such as United States v. Virginia (1996), Olmstead v. L.C. (1999), Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000), and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005). Later in her tenure, Ginsburg received attention for passionate dissents that reflected liberal views of the law. She was popularly dubbed "the Notorious R.B.G.", a moniker she later embraced.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry Blackmun</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1970 to 1994

Harry Andrew Blackmun was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 to 1994. Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William J. Brennan Jr.</span> U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1956 to 1990

William Joseph Brennan Jr. was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1956 to 1990. He was the seventh-longest serving justice in Supreme Court history, and was known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex. Frontiero is an important decision in several respects, including the fact that it informed the military establishment that in terms of pay, allowances and general treatment, women must be considered on an equal plane as men. However, the Court did not issue a broad decision requiring the military to prove in the courts its reasons for excluding women from combat positions.

Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. In Reed v. Reed the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited differential treatment based on sex.

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.

Third party standing is a term of the law of civil procedure that describes when one party may file a lawsuit or assert a defense in which the rights of third parties are asserted. In the United States, this is generally prohibited, as a party can only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of right of a third party who is not before the court. However, there are several exceptions to this doctrine.

Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court dismissed for lack of ripeness a claim in which the plaintiff accused the U.S. Army of alleged unlawful "surveillance of lawful citizen political activity." The appellant's specific nature of the harm caused by the surveillance was that it chilled the First Amendment rights of all citizens and undermined that right to express political dissent.

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered the limitations that the Constitution places on the authority of the United States Congress when Congress uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states. The Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that withheld federal funds from states whose legal drinking age did not conform to federal policy.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rehnquist Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1986 to 2005

The Rehnquist Court was the period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States during which William Rehnquist served as Chief Justice. Rehnquist succeeded Warren Burger as Chief Justice after the latter's retirement, and Rehnquist held this position until his death in 2005, at which point John Roberts was nominated and confirmed as Rehnquist's replacement. The Rehnquist Court is generally considered to be more conservative than the preceding Burger Court, but not as conservative as the succeeding Roberts Court. According to Jeffrey Rosen, Rehnquist combined an amiable nature with great organizational skill, and he "led a Court that put the brakes on some of the excesses of the Earl Warren era while keeping pace with the sentiments of a majority of the country."

Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law, which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more unless their father or husband owned the establishment. Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in the case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state's power to bar them from working as bartenders. Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the women bartender could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if it was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states participating in Medicaid are not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the use of federal funds for abortion. The Court also held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<i>Connecticut v. Doehr</i> 1991 United States Supreme Court case

Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of a defendant's real property upon the filing of an action without prior notice or hearing, a showing of extraordinary circumstances, or a requirement that the plaintiff post a bond violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717 (1988), was a conflict of laws case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was brought by a widower who was denied survivor benefits on the grounds that he had not been receiving at least one-half support from his wife when she died. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court, ruling unconstitutional the provision of the Social Security Act which set forth a gender-based distinction between widows and widowers, whereby Social Security Act survivors benefits were payable to a widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from his late wife, while such benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband were payable to his widow regardless of dependency. The Court found that this distinction deprived female wage earners of the same protection that a similarly situated male worker would have received, violating due process and equal protection.

References

  1. 1 2 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
  2. 1 2 "The History of the ACLU Women's Rights Project" (PDF). Retrieved May 11, 2023.
  3. 1 2 3 Reporter, @aubriesloan, Aubrie Bowlan, Staff (September 21, 2016). "Craig v. Boren plaintiffs celebrate 40th anniversary of Supreme Court case at Edmon Low". ocolly.com. Retrieved May 17, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. 1 2 https://pbwt2.gjassets.com/content/uploads/2021/04/Craig-v-Boren_ACLU-Amicus-Curiae.pdf
  5. 1 2 ""Key Beer Suit Figure Remembered by Friends"". Tulsa World. December 21, 1979.
  6. 1 2 3 "The Supreme Court Historical Society - Learning Center - Women's Rights". supremecourthistory.org. Archived from the original on September 19, 2020. Retrieved December 2, 2017.
  7. 1 2 "Curtis CRAIG et al., Appellants, v. David BOREN, etc., et al". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
  8. ↑ "Supreme Court Decisions & Women's Rights: Justice for Beer Drinkers - Craig v. Boren | SCHS Classroom Resource". Supreme Court Historical Society. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
  9. ↑ "Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
  10. ↑ Williams, Wendy Webster (2013). "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Equal Protection Clause: 1970-80". scholarship.law.georgetown.edu. Retrieved December 2, 2017.
  11. ↑ "Craig v. Boren". Oxford Reference. Retrieved May 11, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.