Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County
1981 U.S. LEXIS 83, 67 L. Ed. 2d 437, 450 US 464 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statutory rape law that criminalizes an act of sexual intercourse for the male participant but not the female does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a gender-based classification is permissible because the sexes are not similarly situated with respect to the consequences of sexual intercourse, and the law is substantially related to the important governmental objective of preventing teenage pregnancy.
Facts:
- Michael M., a 17.5-year-old male, and two friends approached Sharon, a 16.5-year-old female, and her sister at a bus stop.
- Michael M. and Sharon, who had both been drinking, moved away from the others and began kissing.
- After Sharon rebuffed Michael M.'s initial advances, he struck her in the face.
- Following the physical strike, Sharon submitted to sexual intercourse with Michael M.
Procedural Posture:
- A complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of Sonoma County, California, charging Michael M. with violating the state's statutory rape law.
- Prior to trial, Michael M. moved to set aside the charge, arguing the law unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of gender.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- The California Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Michael M. sought review in the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court, which held that the statute was constitutional.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
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 California statutory rape law that defines unlawful sexual intercourse as an act with a female under 18, thereby making only males criminally liable, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No, the California statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. A gender-based classification will be upheld if it bears a substantial relationship to important governmental objectives. Here, the state has a strong interest in preventing illegitimate teenage pregnancy, which has significant social, medical, and economic consequences that fall disproportionately on the female. Because only women can become pregnant, the sexes are not similarly situated, and a law that punishes only the male participant—who does not face the natural deterrent of pregnancy—serves to roughly 'equalize' the deterrents on the sexes. Furthermore, a gender-neutral law would be less effective because a female would be less likely to report violations if she herself were subject to prosecution, thus frustrating the state's interest in enforcement.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
No, the statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. While detrimental gender classifications are often unconstitutional, they are not always so, because there are real differences between males and females that the Constitution recognizes. The most basic of these differences is that females can become pregnant from sexual intercourse, and males cannot. Young women and men are not similarly situated with respect to the problems and risks associated with intercourse and pregnancy, and the statute is realistically related to the legitimate state purpose of reducing those problems and risks.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No, the statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The California statutory rape law is a sufficiently reasoned and constitutional effort to control the problem of teenage pregnancy at its inception. There is an important difference between this type of state action, which seeks to prevent the problem from occurring, and state action that interferes with a woman's ability to deal with a pregnancy once it has become an inevitability. Although the facts of this particular case make it an unattractive one to prosecute, the statute itself is a constitutional tool for addressing the societal concern of young people's sexual activities.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause. The state has not met its burden of proving that the gender-based classification is substantially related to the achievement of its asserted goal of preventing teenage pregnancy. California failed to produce evidence showing that a gender-neutral law would be less effective than its gender-based statute. The state's claim that a gender-neutral law would be unenforceable because females would not report the crime is a 'bare assertion' unsupported by evidence from other states with such laws. Common sense suggests a gender-neutral law could be a greater deterrent because it would subject twice as many potential violators to criminal sanctions.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause. The law's justification is irrational and perverse. The fact that a female confronts a greater risk of harm (pregnancy) is a reason for applying the prohibition to her for her own protection, not a reason for granting her an exemption. It is irrational to exempt 50% of the potential violators from a law designed to prevent risk-creating conduct. The only acceptable justification for punishing only one participant would be a legislative judgment that one is more guilty, but this statute rests on the unsupported, stereotypical assumption that the male is always the aggressor.
Analysis:
This decision affirmed the use of intermediate scrutiny for gender-based classifications but clarified that such classifications can be constitutional when based on tangible, physiological differences between the sexes rather than archaic stereotypes. The Court established that preventing teenage pregnancy is an important state interest that can justify differential treatment, particularly when the law aims to 'equalize' deterrents where a natural deterrent (pregnancy) affects only one sex. This ruling provides a significant precedent for upholding gender-specific laws that address biological realities, distinguishing them from laws based on outdated social roles or administrative convenience that the Court has consistently struck down.
Unlock the full brief for Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County