Today in Supreme Court History: December 20, 1976

12/20/1976: Craig v. Boren decided.

Comments

[apedad]

Re: Craig v. Boren

Facts of the case

An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of “nonintoxicating” 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and Carolyn Whitener, a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory.

Question

Did an Oklahoma statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the statute made unconstitutional gender classifications. The Court held that the statistics relied on by the state of Oklahoma were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the law and the maintenance of traffic safety. Generalities about the drinking habits of aggregate groups did not suffice. The Court also found that the Twenty-first Amendment did not alter the application of the Equal Protection Clause in the case.

In striking down the Oklahoma law, the Court established a new standard for review in gender discrimination cases. More demanding than the lowest standard for review — rational basis — but less demanding than the highest standard — strict scrutiny, the majority articulated an in-between standard — intermediate scrutiny. (oyez)

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (decided December 20, 1971): speedy trial requirement (Sixth Amendment) is not triggered until arrest (here, for business fraud, where prosecutors waited three years before arresting); the accused (or rather, future accused) is still protected by the statute of limitations

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (decided December 20, 1976): denial of Equal Protection when Oklahoma men held to higher drinking age (21) than women (18) (opinion notes how they are treated differently anyway, with drunk men being arrested while drunk women are "chivalrously escorted home", and how women are more affected by alcohol due to lower body weight such that statute as stands "is actually perverse")

Hirota v. General of the Army MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197 (decided December 20, 1948): tribunals set up by military government of Japan are not part of federal court system so can't be appealed from (officers and "high officials" of former Japanese government were jailed after being found guilty of war crimes and sought habeas)

[John F. Carr]

Contrast Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court, a 1981 case where the Supreme Court upheld a facially discriminatory statutory rape law on the grounds that girls could get pregnant and boys couldn't.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not “similarly situated”. (Esp. if they do it “doggie style”. That was my experience because it’s the most practical way in the back seat of the parents’ car. Though you have to be careful not to move the wrong way and poke an ovary.)

[Mr. Bumble]

More than we need to know.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes I saw that after it was too late to edit. Still hung over.