Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Virginia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1996 · Constitutional Law

equal protectiongender discriminationVMIexceedingly persuasive justificationEqual Protection Clausesex classificationsheightened scrutinyexceedingly persuasive justification

Facts

VMI is Virginia's sole single-sex public college and offers a unique military-style education aimed at producing "citizen-soldiers" through an adversative method emphasizing physical rigor, mental stress, strict regulation, and barracks life. Virginia excluded all women from VMI, even though the record showed that VMI's mission and methodology were not inherently unsuitable to women and that some women would want to attend and could meet VMI's standards. After the exclusion was held unconstitutional, Virginia chose to keep VMI male-only and created VWIL, a separate program for women at Mary Baldwin College. VWIL did not replicate VMI's rigorous military training, adversative method, facilities, prestige, alumni network, course offerings, or other tangible and intangible advantages.

Issue

Whether Virginia's exclusion of women from VMI violated the Equal Protection Clause. If so, whether Virginia's creation of the separate VWIL program provided a constitutionally adequate remedy.

Rule

A state sex-based classification is constitutional only if the State provides an exceedingly persuasive justification. The State bears the burden entirely and must show that the classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to achieving those objectives; the justification must be genuine, not post hoc, and may not rest on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females. When a constitutional violation is found, the remedy must closely fit the violation by placing those denied opportunity in the position they would have occupied absent discrimination and by providing genuinely equal opportunity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The State of Ohio operates North Valley Maritime College in Toledo, a public academy known for an intensive shipboard leadership program. The school admits only men. After a lawsuit is filed, Ohio argues the exclusion of women promotes "institutional diversity" because students benefit from having different educational models available statewide, but the record shows no prior statewide policy endorsing sex-segregated options and all other public colleges in Ohio are coeducational.

How should a court applying the governing equal protection standard most likely rule?

Explanation. A sex-based classification is valid only if the State carries the burden of providing an exceedingly persuasive justification. The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. Here, the asserted diversity rationale is unsupported by an actual statewide policy and appears to be a rationalization offered after suit was filed. Under the majority's reasoning, that fails heightened review.