Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
458 U.S. 718, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982)
Rule of Law:
A state-sponsored, gender-based classification is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause unless the state can demonstrate an 'exceedingly persuasive justification' showing that the classification serves important governmental objectives and is substantially related to achieving those objectives.
Facts:
- In 1884, Mississippi established a state-supported college exclusively for women, now known as Mississippi University for Women (MUW).
- MUW has limited its enrollment to women since its inception.
- In 1971, MUW established a School of Nursing offering baccalaureate degrees.
- Joe Hogan, a male registered nurse, resided and worked in the same city as MUW.
- In 1979, Hogan, who was otherwise qualified, applied for admission to MUW's baccalaureate nursing program to advance his career.
- MUW denied Hogan admission to its School of Nursing for credit solely because of his sex.
- MUW officials offered to let Hogan audit nursing courses, but he could not earn a degree.
- Other state-supported, coeducational nursing programs were available to Hogan, but they were located a considerable distance from his home.
Procedural Posture:
- Joe Hogan filed suit against MUW in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
- The District Court, applying a rational basis test, entered summary judgment in favor of the State (MUW).
- Hogan appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that intermediate scrutiny applied and that the state's policy was unconstitutional.
- The State (MUW) petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 state statute that excludes males from enrolling in a state-supported professional nursing school violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. A state statute that excludes males from a state-supported professional nursing school violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state must carry the burden of showing an 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for a gender-based classification, which requires demonstrating that the classification serves 'important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are 'substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.' Mississippi's primary justification, that the single-sex policy compensates for past discrimination against women, is unpersuasive because nursing has historically been a female-dominated field, not one where women lacked opportunity. Instead of remedying discrimination, the policy perpetuates the stereotype of nursing as an exclusively female profession. Furthermore, the policy is not substantially related to its objective, as evidenced by the fact that MUW allows men to audit nursing classes, which undermines the claim that their presence would harm the educational environment for women.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No. A state statute that excludes males from a state-supported professional nursing school does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's holding should be limited specifically to the context of a professional nursing school, a field traditionally dominated by women. The majority's reasoning suggests that a state might be justified in maintaining single-sex admissions for other programs, such as a business school or a liberal arts program, where the historical context is different.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. A state statute that excludes males from a state-supported professional nursing school does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's rigid application of equal protection rules destroys valuable educational choices without a compelling need. Hogan was not deprived of a nursing education, as other state schools were available to him; his complaint is one of convenience. This ruling places all state-supported single-sex institutions in constitutional jeopardy and relegates educational diversity to 'needless conformity.'
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No. A state statute that excludes males from a state-supported professional nursing school does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court misapplies heightened scrutiny to a situation that does not involve genuine sexual stereotyping but rather expands educational choice for women. Hogan's claim is based on mere inconvenience, not the denial of an educational opportunity, and should be reviewed under a rational-basis standard. Even under intermediate scrutiny, Mississippi has a substantial and legitimate interest in preserving educational diversity by offering a single-sex college environment, a choice that many women prefer and that does not invidiously discriminate against anyone, as ample coeducational options exist.
Analysis:
This decision firmly established that intermediate scrutiny applies to gender-based classifications that discriminate against men as well as women. The Court's rejection of the 'benign' compensatory justification signaled that such affirmative action rationales must be based on evidence that the favored group actually suffers a relevant disadvantage. By striking down the single-sex policy in a female-dominated field, the case significantly narrowed the constitutional permissibility of state-sponsored single-sex education, setting a precedent that would be influential in later cases like United States v. Virginia.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"