Key Takeaways

1. Craig v. Boren (1976) established the “intermediate scrutiny” standard, requiring that gender-based classifications serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to achieving those objectives under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court struck down an Oklahoma statute that discriminated based on gender, holding that statistical evidence of a 2% correlation between young men and drunk driving was insufficient to justify different legal treatment of men and women.
3. The decision profoundly shaped the legal landscape for gender equality, influencing future Supreme Court cases and legislation, and remains a foundational precedent in constitutional law and civil rights.

Introduction

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), is widely recognized as a landmark Supreme Court decision that transformed the legal landscape of gender discrimination in the United States. By establishing the intermediate scrutiny standard for evaluating laws that classify individuals based on sex, the Court fundamentally shifted how courts analyze gender-based distinctions under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case arose from an Oklahoma statute that allowed women to purchase 3.2% beer at age 18 but prohibited men from doing so until age 21. The challenge, brought by Curtis Craig, a male under 21, and a beer vendor, questioned the constitutionality of this gender-based distinction.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of Craig v. Boren, examining its facts, legal reasoning, impact, and ongoing significance. For attorneys and legal researchers seeking deeper insight, resources like Oyez, Justia, and Counsel Stack offer invaluable primary source material and analysis.

Background and Context

The Legal Landscape Before Craig v. Boren

Prior to Craig v. Boren, the Supreme Court’s approach to gender-based classifications was inconsistent. The rational basis test—the most lenient standard of judicial review—was often applied to sex-based distinctions, meaning laws merely needed to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In rare instances, the Court hinted at a need for more stringent scrutiny, particularly in cases like Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), where the Court invalidated a law preferring men over women as estate administrators. However, a clear, consistent standard for gender discrimination cases had not yet emerged.

The Oklahoma Statute

The statute at issue in Craig v. Boren, Oklahoma Statute Title 37, § 241, prohibited the sale of “nonintoxicating” 3.2 percent beer to males under 21, while permitting females to purchase it at 18. The state justified this distinction using statistical evidence suggesting that young men were more likely than young women to be arrested for drunk driving and related offenses.

The Plaintiffs

Curtis Craig, a male under 21, and Carolyn Whitener, a licensed vendor of 3.2 percent beer, challenged the statute. They argued that it violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating similarly situated men and women differently based solely on gender. Their case was joined by David Boren, then Governor of Oklahoma, as the named defendant in his official capacity.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Procedural History

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 5, 1976, and decided on December 20, 1976. Justice Brennan delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices White, Marshall, Powell, and Stevens. Justice Blackmun concurred in all but one part of the opinion.

The Majority Opinion

The Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma statute’s gender-based distinction was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the state’s statistical evidence—showing that young men were arrested for drunk driving at higher rates than young women—did not justify treating all young men differently from all young women. Specifically, the Court found that the correlation (about 2%) between gender and drunk driving offenses was too weak to support such a broad classification.

Establishment of Intermediate Scrutiny

Most importantly, the Court articulated a new standard of review for sex-based classifications: intermediate scrutiny. Under this standard, gender-based laws must:

• Serve important governmental objectives; and
• Be substantially related to achieving those objectives.

This was a significant departure from the rational basis test and marked the first time the Court applied a heightened standard to gender discrimination cases.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Justice Powell, joined by Justice Stevens, concurred, emphasizing the need for careful judicial scrutiny of gender-based laws. Justice Stevens also wrote separately to underscore the importance of individual rights. Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing that the rational basis test should apply and that the statute was constitutional.

Legal Reasoning and Analysis

The Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Historically, the Supreme Court had interpreted this clause to prohibit arbitrary discrimination, but the level of judicial scrutiny applied depended on the classification at issue.

• Strict scrutiny is applied to race-based classifications.
• Rational basis is applied to most other classifications.
• Intermediate scrutiny, as established in Craig v. Boren, is now applied to gender-based classifications.

The State’s Justification

Oklahoma argued that the law was justified by the need to promote traffic safety, citing data that males ages 18-20 were more frequently arrested for drunk driving than females of the same age. The state believed that prohibiting young men from purchasing beer would reduce accidents and fatalities.

The Court’s Rejection of the State’s Evidence

The Court found that the statistical disparity was not sufficient to justify the gender-based distinction. The majority noted that only a small percentage of young men were involved in drunk driving offenses, and the difference between genders was not substantial enough to support a categorical rule. The decision emphasized that laws based on broad generalizations or stereotypes about gender are constitutionally suspect.

The New Standard: Intermediate Scrutiny

For the first time, the Court held that laws discriminating based on sex must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achieving those objectives. This standard requires courts to examine the actual purpose of the law and whether the means chosen are closely aligned with that purpose.

Impact and Legacy

Immediate Effects

The immediate effect of the decision was to invalidate the Oklahoma statute. Young men and women in Oklahoma were henceforth treated equally with respect to the purchase of 3.2 percent beer.

Establishing Intermediate Scrutiny

The most significant legacy of Craig v. Boren is the establishment of the intermediate scrutiny standard for gender-based classifications. This standard has since been applied in numerous Supreme Court decisions, including:

• Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982): The Court struck down a state law barring men from enrolling in a state-supported nursing school.
• United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996): The Court invalidated the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy.

Influence on Legislation

Craig v. Boren influenced subsequent federal and state legislation. For example, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the minimum drinking age at 21 nationwide by penalizing states that allowed a lower age. This law was challenged and upheld in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), but the challenge did not involve gender-based distinctions and thus was unaffected by Craig.

Broader Impact on Gender Equality

The decision is widely regarded as a milestone in the movement for gender equality. By requiring the government to provide a substantial justification for gender-based laws, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for legislatures to enact discriminatory statutes based on outdated stereotypes or assumptions.

Ongoing Relevance

Craig v. Boren remains a foundational precedent in constitutional law. Legal scholars, practitioners, and students continue to study the case for its doctrinal significance and its role in shaping the modern understanding of equal protection. The case is featured in law school curricula, bar exam preparation materials, and legal research platforms such as Quimbee, Oyez, and Justia.

Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

Critique of Gender Stereotyping

Craig v. Boren is notable for its explicit rejection of gender stereotyping in lawmaking. The majority opinion makes clear that laws based on “overbroad generalizations” about the differences between men and women are not constitutionally permissible. The Court recognized that such stereotypes perpetuate inequality and undermine individual rights.

The Role of Statistics in Equal Protection Analysis

The case also addresses the use of statistical evidence in justifying discriminatory laws. The Court was skeptical of the state’s reliance on arrest statistics, noting that the data did not establish a meaningful connection between gender and the propensity to drive drunk. The decision signals that statistical disparities alone are insufficient to justify broad legal distinctions.

The Limits of Governmental Objectives

While the Court acknowledged that promoting traffic safety is an important governmental objective, it found that the means chosen—barring young men from purchasing beer while permitting young women to do so—were not substantially related to that goal. The ruling thus clarified that even important objectives cannot justify arbitrary or overinclusive classifications.

Broader Legal and Social Implications

Precedent for Future Litigation

Craig v. Boren set the stage for future litigation challenging gender-based laws. Plaintiffs in subsequent cases could invoke the intermediate scrutiny standard to argue that laws discriminating on the basis of sex must be closely tied to legitimate and important governmental interests.

Influence on Civil Rights and Women’s Rights

The decision contributed to the broader civil rights movement by providing a robust constitutional framework for challenging gender discrimination. It played a role in the advancement of women’s rights by requiring courts to scrutinize laws that perpetuate inequality.

Criticism and Limitations

Some critics argue that intermediate scrutiny is still less rigorous than strict scrutiny and may allow certain gender-based distinctions to survive judicial review. Others contend that the standard is appropriately balanced, recognizing both the need to protect individual rights and the government’s interest in enacting reasonable regulations.

Educational and Scholarly Analysis

Craig v. Boren is extensively analyzed in legal education and scholarship. Resources such as the Supreme Court History website, UMKC School of Law, and the Federalist Society provide historical context and in-depth analysis of the decision’s impact.

Related Cases and Subsequent Developments

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Perhaps the most prominent application of the Craig v. Boren standard was in United States v. Virginia. The Court struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s all-male admissions policy, holding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The decision reaffirmed the intermediate scrutiny standard and clarified that gender-based classifications must be supported by an “exceedingly persuasive justification.”

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982)

In this case, the Supreme Court invalidated a state law that excluded men from enrolling in a state-supported nursing school, applying the standard set forth in Craig v. Boren.

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

While not directly related to gender discrimination, South Dakota v. Dole upheld the federal government’s authority to withhold highway funds from states that did not adopt a minimum drinking age of 21. The case illustrates how legislative responses to social issues can be shaped by constitutional standards and Supreme Court precedent.

Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners

Challenging Gender-Based Laws

Attorneys challenging gender-based laws must be prepared to argue under the intermediate scrutiny standard. This involves demonstrating that the law does not serve an important governmental objective or that the means chosen are not substantially related to achieving that objective.

Defending Gender-Based Laws

Conversely, attorneys defending such laws must marshal strong evidence that the law is justified by important objectives and that the gender-based distinction is necessary to achieve those goals. Mere reliance on stereotypes or weak statistical evidence is unlikely to suffice.

Legal Research and Resources

For those engaged in legal research, platforms like Counsel Stack provide access to primary source materials, case law, and expert analysis. Official Supreme Court opinions and oral arguments can be accessed via Oyez and Justia, while educational summaries are available on Quimbee.

Conclusion

Craig v. Boren stands as a pivotal Supreme Court decision that reshaped the constitutional framework for evaluating gender discrimination. By establishing the intermediate scrutiny standard, the Court provided a powerful tool for challenging laws that perpetuate inequality. The case continues to influence legal doctrine, legislative policy, and social attitudes toward gender equality.

For attorneys and legal professionals seeking to understand or litigate equal protection claims, Craig v. Boren is essential reading. Comprehensive legal research platforms, such as Counsel Stack, offer the resources needed to navigate this complex and evolving area of law.

Disclaimer

This guide provides a general overview of Craig v. Boren and its legal significance. It is not intended as legal advice and does not address all possible nuances or developments in the law. For specific legal questions or detailed research, consult a qualified attorney or access primary sources and expert analysis through Counsel Stack and other official resources.