During the course of litigation, Virginia had opened a women’s equivalent of the VMI, but the Court still ruled that it simply did not-and could not-offer the same facilities, funding, and prestige associated with the VMI. The majority opinion said that the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) did not show “exceedingly persuasive justification” for its sex-based admissions policy, which violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Virginia, was remarkable not only because it struck down the last all-male public university, but also because it grappled directly with the appropriate standard of review. While permitted in many contexts, single-sex schools are often viewed skeptically when legally challenged. However, the Supreme Court still ruled segregation in education unconstitutional, saying “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” It is noteworthy that the Topeka schools were actually considered equivalent in quality, as districts had typically been moving to meet this benchmark in recent years. Board of Education of Topeka, ruling that “separate but equal” was in fact a violation of the 14th amendment. Sixty years later, the Supreme Court wisely reversed their stance in Brown v. Widely considered to be one of the most shameful decisions in its history (along with Dred Scott), the Court said the 14th amendment did not eliminate all “distinctions based on color” as long as the facilities provided were equivalent in quality-This was known as the “separate but equal” doctrine. Ferguson that race-segregated public transportation was not unconstitutional. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Public schools illustrate the difference between strict and intermediate scrutiny. ![]() In practice, this has provided women broad protection against discrimination, while preserving the right to provide things like female-only sports, sex-segregated prison housing, and female nurses for intimate exams. The bottom line is that the government can almost never treat people differently based on things like race, while they can sometimes treat people differently based on sex, if it serves an important policy consideration. Intermediate scrutiny applies to “quasi-suspect” classes, including characteristics such as sex and sexual orientation, as well as rights such as freedom of speech. As with strict scrutiny, the burden of proof is on the government, but here they only need to prove that there is an “important government objective” and that the law or policy is “substantially related” to achieving that objective.” Intermediate scrutiny (sometimes called ‘heightened’ or ‘elevated’ scrutiny) is in the middle. ![]() Under strict scrutiny, the government has the burden of proof to show that there is a “compelling state interest” behind the policy and that the policy is “narrowly tailored” to achieve the result. ![]() “ Strict scrutiny, the highest level, applies to “suspect classes” (race, religion, and national origin) and to “fundamental rights” such as marriage or voting. When a law or government policy is challenged, the court’s power to review it-also called ‘scrutiny’-depends upon who or what is impacted by that law or policy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |