United States v. Virginia
Citation and Court
518 U.S. 515 (1996). United States Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the Court (7-1; Justice Thomas recused).
Facts
The Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a state-supported military college, maintained a male-only admissions policy throughout its 157-year history. VMI’s distinctive “adversative” educational method — designed to produce citizen-soldiers through rigorous physical and psychological training — was available only to men. The United States sued Virginia, arguing the exclusion of women violated the Equal Protection Clause. Virginia proposed a parallel program, the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL) at a private college, as a remedial measure.
Issue
Does Virginia’s maintenance of an exclusively male admissions policy at VMI, a state-supported military college, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
Yes. VMI’s male-only admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause. Virginia failed to provide an exceedingly persuasive justification for excluding women, and the proposed VWIL remedy was constitutionally inadequate because it offered an inferior educational opportunity.
Rule / Doctrine
Exceedingly Persuasive Justification for Sex Classifications: The intermediate scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications — established in Craig v. Boren — requires that gender-based government action be justified by an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” The burden is on the government to show that the classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed is substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. Generalizations about the way women are, or tend to be, cannot justify denying opportunity to individual women who have the will and capacity to succeed.
Significance
United States v. Virginia is the most important sex discrimination equal protection decision since Craig v. Boren. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion tightened intermediate scrutiny by demanding an “exceedingly persuasive justification,” a formulation that approaches (but does not quite reach) strict scrutiny. The VMI remedy holding establishes that the government cannot offer a separate but inferior program to satisfy equal protection — echoing the logic of Brown v. Board of Education in the gender context. The decision opened elite military institutions and other historically single-sex environments to women.