Craig v. Boren
429 U.S. 190 (1976)
Rule of Law:
To withstand constitutional challenge under the Equal Protection Clause, classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.
Facts:
- An Oklahoma statute prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21.
- The same statute permitted the sale of 3.2% beer to females aged 18 and over.
- Curtis Craig was a male between the ages of 18 and 21 who was subject to the statute's prohibition.
- Carolyn Whitener was a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer who was obligated to enforce the age-sex differential.
- Oklahoma defended the statute by arguing that it was substantially related to the state's objective of promoting traffic safety.
- The state presented statistical evidence showing that males between 18 and 20 were arrested for driving under the influence and drunkenness at a significantly higher rate than females in the same age group.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis Craig and Carolyn Whitener filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against state officials.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Oklahoma beer statute was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court sustained the constitutionality of the statutory differential and dismissed the action.
- Craig and Whitener, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Oklahoma statute that prohibits the sale of 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 but permits the sale to females 18 and older violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the Oklahoma statute violates the Equal Protection Clause. To be constitutional, classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. While enhancing traffic safety is an important government objective, the statistical evidence offered by Oklahoma does not support the conclusion that the gender-based distinction closely serves to achieve that objective. The statistics showed that only 2% of males aged 18-20 were arrested for alcohol-related driving offenses, which the Court deemed an 'unduly tenuous fit' to justify a broad classification based on gender. Furthermore, the Twenty-first Amendment, which grants states power to regulate alcohol, does not empower states to enact invidious discriminations that violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Concurrence - Justice Powell
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. While the asserted governmental objective of highway safety is legitimate and important, the gender-based classification does not bear a 'fair and substantial relation' to that objective. The statistical evidence may suggest young men are involved in more accidents, but it does not justify a classification that is so easily circumvented as to be virtually meaningless in achieving its goal.
Concurrence - Justice Stevens
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. The classification is objectionable because it is based on an accident of birth and is a remnant of an outdated tradition of discrimination. The state's traffic safety justification is unacceptable because the law has only a minimal effect on access to alcohol and unfairly imposes a restraint on 100% of males in the class because of the alleged misdeeds of about 2% of them.
Concurrence - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. I join the Court’s opinion except for its discussion of the Twenty-first Amendment (Part II-D), although I agree that the Amendment does not save the challenged statute.
Concurrence - Justice Stewart
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. The disparity created by the Oklahoma statutes amounts to total irrationality. The state's statistics wholly fail to prove or even suggest that 3.2% beer is more dangerous in the hands of a male aged 18-20 than a female of the same age, making the disparate treatment invidious discrimination.
Dissent - Chief Justice Burger
No, the statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. First, appellant Whitener, as a vendor, lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of her customers. On the merits, the Court should not create substantive constitutional rights in the name of equal protection. Since the means employed by the Oklahoma Legislature are not irrational, there is no basis for striking down the statute.
Dissent - Justice Rehnquist
No, the statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court's creation of a new 'intermediate' level of scrutiny for gender classifications 'apparently comes out of thin air.' The traditional rational basis test should apply, and under that standard, the Oklahoma statute is constitutional. The state's statistical evidence, showing clear differences in the drinking and driving habits of young men and women, provides a reasonable basis for the legislature's decision.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the doctrine of 'intermediate scrutiny' for gender-based classifications, creating a new, middle tier of judicial review under the Equal Protection Clause. This standard is more rigorous than the 'rational basis' test but less stringent than 'strict scrutiny.' The decision significantly raised the bar for governments seeking to justify laws that treat men and women differently, requiring them to demonstrate that the law is substantially related to achieving an important governmental objective. It effectively moved gender classifications closer to the level of protection afforded to racial classifications, fundamentally altering the landscape of sex discrimination litigation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Craig v. Boren (1976)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"