https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m Made with panache en-us 2018-12-04 15:48:31 UTC 2024-11-23 22:34:29 UTC hello@padlet.com tcraig1742 https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310960938 2018-12-04 15:54:03 UTC https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310960938 tcraig1742 https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310974794 7–1 DECISION FOR UNITED STATES 
MAJORITY OPINION BY RUTH BADER GINSBURG
VMI's male-only admissions policy lacked an "exceedingly persuasive justification" violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment]]> 2018-12-04 16:13:11 UTC https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310974794 tcraig1742 https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310975650 2UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA et al., (1996)
No. 94-1941
Argued: January 17, 1996    Decided: June 26, 1996
ADVOCATES
Paul Bender
Argued the cause for the United States
Theodore B. Olson
Argued the cause on behalf of Virginia et al]]> 2018-12-04 16:14:29 UTC https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310975650 tcraig1742 https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310977381 Concurring or Dissenting opinion:

Concurring (Rehnquist):

The majority was incorrect to add a requirement that the government offer an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for gender-based classifications. This requirement is inconsistent with the long standing standard of intermediate scrutiny. In addition, constructing a women’s only equivalent school does not remedy the unconstitutionality of the classification because it prevents women from having the same equal opportunity at leadership that men do.

Dissenting (Scalia):

The majority’s decision disregards history, tradition and precedent.  Completely ignoring evidentiary findings that physical differences in strength exist in men and women equates to overlooking a justification for requiring them to attend different schools.


]]> 2018-12-04 16:17:39 UTC https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310977381 tcraig1742 https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310977764 United States v. Virginia sets out the appropriate level of scrutiny for gender-based classifications as the “intermediate scrutiny” test. Under this test, the government must prove the classification is substantially related to an important government interest.]]> 2018-12-04 16:18:14 UTC https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/310977764 tcraig1742 https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/311415730 This case began in 1990, when a female high school student sought admission to the
Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a state-supported all-male academy. She filed a complaint with
the United States Attorney General, after which the United States filed suit against the
Commonwealth of Virginia and VMI, challenging VMI's exclusively-male admission policy as
violating the Equal Protection Clause. The federal district court ruled in favor of VMI, but the
court of appeals reversed and ordered the state to provide a remedy. Virginia established a
parallel program for women, the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL), located at
Mary Baldwin College, a private liberal arts school for women. The district court and court of
appeals upheld VWIL as a legitimate remedy for the constitutional violation. Both the United
States and Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court.
 This case is significant because the ruling makes it possible for qualified young women to
attend all of the nation's public military academies, state and federal. ]]> 2018-12-05 15:43:41 UTC https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/311415730 tcraig1742 https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/311416264 2018-12-05 15:44:34 UTC https://padlet.com/tcraig1742/plg9cxx2qy3m/wish/311416264