Case brief summary
When the government treats men and women differently under the law, it must show an extremely strong and genuine reason for doing so, not just a reasonable sounding excuse made up after the fact.
Facts
Virginia Military Institute was a tough public college that only admitted men. The government sued, saying this broke equal treatment rules. Virginia responded by creating a smaller, less prestigious leadership program for women elsewhere.
Procedural history
A trial court sided with VMI. An appeals court disagreed and told Virginia to fix the problem. Virginia created a women's program, which lower courts accepted. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case.
Issue
Does excluding women from VMI's unique educational opportunity violate their right to equal treatment under the law, and if so, does creating a separate, different program for women fix that violation?
Holding
Excluding women from VMI violates their right to equal protection, and the separate women's program at Mary Baldwin does not fix the problem because it is not equal to VMI.
Reasoning
Virginia had no real justification for excluding women, since its teaching methods weren't actually unsuitable for them. The separate women's program lacked VMI's resources, prestige, and opportunities, so it wasn't an equal substitute.
Opinions
Majority (Ginsburg): Virginia failed to justify excluding women from VMI, and the separate women's program does not cure the constitutional violation because it is unequal.
Concurrences (Rehnquist): Agreed VMI's male only policy and the women's program both fail, but would have allowed a truly equal separate women's institution as a possible fix.
Dissent (Scalia): The Court wrongly abandoned established legal tests and traditions, and its reasoning will effectively end single sex public and private education nationwide.