Case Brief MUW v. Hogan

[EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE – INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY] MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN - UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (1982) RULE OF LAW: A state statute that discriminates on the basis of gender may be unconstitutional if the statutory objective itself reflects archaic and stereotypical notions relating to gender. INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY: Also known as heightened scrutiny, under constitutional jurisprudence, a level of scrutiny between rational basis and strict that is applied to determine whether a quasi-suspect classification, such as gender or legitimacy, is substantially related to the accomplishment of an important governmental purpose. 1) FACTS AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND - [material facts] The Mississippi University for Women (MUW) (defendant) was a state-sponsored single-sex public university. MUW upheld a policy of excluding men from admission. Joe Hogan (plaintiff) was a registered nurse in Mississippi that did not hold a degree in nursing. However, he had worked for over five years as a nursing supervisor in Columbus, Mississippi; the city in which MUW was located. In 1979, he applied for admission to MUW’s School of Nursing degree program but was denied admission because he was male despite the fact that he was otherwise qualified. [procedural history] Hogan brought suit against MUW in federal district court on the grounds that his denial of admission violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld MUW’s admissions policy, holding that it furthered a legitimate state purpose, but the court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. 2) LEGAL ISSUE May a state statute exclude males from enrolling in a state-sponsored professional nursing school without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3) HOLDING (O’CONNOR) No. For a state statute that discriminates based on gender to be upheld, the proponent of the statute must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the discrimination. 4) RATIONALE (i) WHICH CLASSIFICATION IS IN QUESTION? WHICH SCRUTINY SHALL BE APPLIED? Restrictions on access to a school based on sex: proper standard for reviewing this issue is intermediate scrutiny. TEST? INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY (ii) IS THERE A GOVERNMENT IMPORTANT INTEREST? [NO] For a state statute that discriminates based on gender to be upheld, the proponent of the statute must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the discrimination. This burden is met only by showing that the discriminating classification serves important governmental objectives, and that the discriminatory means employed is substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. However, in determining the constitutionality of the statute, the reviewing court must also take care in ascertaining whether the statutory objective itself reflects archaic and stereotypic notions relating to gender. MISSISSIPPI’S ARGUMENT: (1) it needed to remedy past instances of discrimination against women in higher education as a justification for the exclusion policy. COURT’S REPLY: (1) the Court still scrutinizes the policy as a whole to determine if Mississippi’s actual purpose is based on gender stereotypes. Mississippi does not have a legitimate purpose for the MUW admissions policy. A state can use the purpose of compensating for past discrimination against a gender group only if the members of the gender that benefit by the compensation are disadvantaged in a way related to the gender discrimination. Mississippi fails to provide evidence showing that women were discriminated against in higher education at the time MUW was formed or when its nursing school was opened. In contrast, over ninety-eight percent of nurses employed at the time were female, and MUW’s exclusionary admissions policy actually perpetuated the stereotype that nursing is a “female only” profession. Additionally, Mississippi fails to show that its policy is substantially related to furthering a legitimate state purpose of promoting female achievement in education, as men are allowed to audit nursing classes, but not enroll in the actual school . Having men sit in nursing classes with women does not negatively impact the ability of women to gain a quality education. (iii) BURDEN OF PROOF: NO EVIDENCE ON MISSISSIPPI ARGUMENTS. The MUW admissions policy denying admission to men does not pass intermediate scrutiny and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed 5) DISSENTING OPINIONS: A) BLACKMUN: MUW’s exclusionary policy does not actually harm Hogan because he could simply attend other nursing schools open to men outside his home city. Moreover, the majority’s holding is overbroad and operates to invalidate any remaining single-sex state-sponsored institution. B) POWELL: The majority’s holding destroys an important aspect of diversity in higher education opportunities: single-sex schools. MUW serves a significant historical and traditional role in the State of Mississippi that is now jeopardized by the Court’s holding. Hogan did not suffer any real injury from MUW’s exclusionary policy beyond that of inconvenience. Hogan could easily drive to and attend other professional nursing schools that are open to males. Finally, Mississippi’s exclusionary policy is substantially related to a legitimate state interest in remedying previous discrimination.