Goesaert v. Cleary
335 U.S. 464 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that discriminates on the basis of gender does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if the classification is not wholly irrational and has a conceivable, rational basis, particularly in the state's exercise of its power to regulate the sale of liquor.
Facts:
- Michigan enacted a law requiring bartenders in cities with populations of 50,000 or more to be licensed.
- The law prohibited females from being licensed as bartenders.
- The statute created an exception, allowing a woman to be licensed if she was the 'wife or daughter of the male owner' of the establishment.
- This law prevented women who owned bars from tending bar in their own establishments and barred most other women from the profession.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction in a federal District Court to restrain the enforcement of the Michigan bartending law.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court, with one judge dissenting, denied the injunction, upholding the state law.
- The plaintiffs filed a direct appeal 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 a Michigan law that prohibits most women from being licensed as bartenders, while creating an exception for the wives and daughters of male bar owners, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No, the Michigan law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Clause precludes irrational discrimination, but it does not require situations that are different in fact to be treated as if they are the same. States have broad power to regulate the liquor industry, and the legislature could rationally conclude that bartending by women gives rise to unique 'moral and social problems.' The legislature may have believed that the oversight provided by a husband or father who owns the establishment minimizes the hazards that might otherwise confront a barmaid. Because this belief is entertainable and the line drawn by the legislature has a basis in reason, the Court will not second-guess the state's judgment or motives.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rutledge
Yes, the Michigan law violates the Equal Protection Clause. The statute creates an invidious and arbitrary distinction that cannot be justified. It discriminates between male and female owners: a male owner may employ his wife or daughter as a barmaid, but a female owner may not work as a barmaid herself or employ her own daughter. This result undermines the claim that the law is motivated by a concern for the well-being of women, as there is no conceivable justification for such discrimination against female owners. Therefore, the statute should be held invalid as a denial of equal protection.
Analysis:
This case is a classic example of the Supreme Court applying the highly deferential 'rational basis' standard of review to a gender-based classification, a standard that would later be abandoned. The decision reflects the historical view that gender was a permissible basis for legal distinctions as long as the state could articulate some conceivable, non-arbitrary reason. This precedent was a significant barrier to gender equality litigation until the 1970s, when cases like Reed v. Reed and Craig v. Boren established that gender classifications are subject to a more demanding 'intermediate scrutiny' standard.
Unlock the full brief for Goesaert v. Cleary