Overview

Virginia, United States v.


'Virginia, United States v.' can also refer to...

United States v. Virginia

United States v. Virginia

Virginia, United States v.

Virginia, United States v.

United States v Salad and ors, Decision on motion to dismiss, 908 F Supp 2d 730 (ED Va 2012), ILDC 2027 (US 2012), 30th November 2012, United States; Virginia; District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [ED Va]

Recovering a "Lost" Story Using Oral History: The United States Supreme Court's Historic Green v. New Kent County, Virginia, Decision

Warfaa v Ali, Trial court judgment, 33 F Supp 3d 653 (ED Va 2014), ILDC 2253 (US 2014), 29th July 2014, United States; Virginia; District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [ED Va]

Bell v True, Decision on writ of habeas corpus, 413 FSupp2d 657 (WD Va 2006), ILDC 2344 (US 2006), 7th February 2006, United States; Virginia; District Court for the Western District of Virginia [WD Va]

United States v Hasan and ors, Decision on motion to dismiss, No 2:10cr56, ILDC 1586 (US 2010), 29th October 2010, District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [E.D. Va]

United States v Lindh, Decision on motion to dismiss, 212 F Supp 2d 541 (ED Va 2002), ILDC 1801 (US 2002), 11th July 2002, District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [E.D. Va]

United States v Ayesh, Motion to dismiss, 762 F Supp 2d 832 (ED VA 2011), ILDC 1823 (US 2011), 28th January 2011, District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [E.D. Va]

Atkins (Daryl Renard) v Virginia, Appeal decision, Docket No 00-8452, 536 US 304 (2002), 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002), 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), ILDC 692 (US 2002), 20th June 2002, United States [us]

United States v Cisneros (Ismael Juarez), Trial Judgment, 397 F.Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Va. 2005), ILDC 711 (US 2005), 21st July 2005, District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [E.D. Va]

United States v Labs of Virginia, Incorporated and ors, Trial court motions judgment, 272 F Supp 2d 764 (ND Ill 2003), No 02 CR 0312, ILDC 2292 (US 2003), 22nd July 2003, United States; Illinois; District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [ND Ill]

 

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Law

GO

Show Summary Details

Quick Reference

518 U.S. 515 (1996), argued 17 Jan. 1996, decided 26 June 1996 by vote of 7 to 1; Ginsburg for the Court, Scalia in dissent; Thomas took no part in the consideration or the decision of the case since his son was a student at the Virginia Military Academy (VMI). By 1995 only two state-supported all-male military colleges existed in the United States—The Citadel, in Charleston, South Carolina, and VMI, in Lexington, Virginia. In both instances, the colleges had excluded women from their ranks. VMI did so on the grounds that its “adversative” method of training was not appropriate for women. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had concluded that excluding women from a state-supported military education violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. In the case of VMI, however, the Fourth Circuit had accepted Virginia's plan to offer a military-style education for women in the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) at Mary Baldwin College in nearby Staunton, Virginia. The Clinton administration then appealed this decision on the grounds that Virginia had actually made the situation worse by not even meeting the constitutionally discredited standard of “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

Counsel for Virginia argued to the Supreme Court that single-sex education offered distinctive advantages for men that would be fundamentally altered if women were admitted to the program. Women, Virginia argued, differed from men in their psychological and physical makeups. Men were better equipped for self-reliance; women were better suited to relationships. Women could not and would not be able to perform under the “adversative” method of training that had become the hallmark of an education at VMI.

The United States countered by arguing that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited a state from limiting individual rights by resorting to stereotypes. The government struck especially hard at the VWIL program set up for women who wanted military training, insisting that such a program not only denied the women the same facilities and training methods used by the men but it prevented them from demonstrating that they could ever succeed in the more rigorous environment of VMI. Finally, the government insisted that the Court should apply a standard of strict scrutiny, which had been applied to racial categories, in dealing with matters of gender discrimination.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion for the Court brought an end to the 157-year tradition of all-male education at VMI. Ginsburg held that the practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “While Virginia serves the state's sons,” Ginsburg wrote, “it makes no provision whatever for her daughters. That is not equal protection” (pp. 2307–2308). Ginsburg also dismissed VWIL at Mary Baldwin College as distinctly inferior based on the quality of the faculty, the academic skills of the student body, and the physical facilities. The justice also reminded Virginia that women already attended the nation's military academies. “There is no reason,” Ginsburg concluded, “to believe that the admission of women capable of all the activities required of V.M.I. cadets would destroy the Institute rather than enhance its capacity … ” (p. 2336).

[...]

Subjects: Law.


Reference entries

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.