Case: Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
Facts: An Oklahoma state statue prohibited males under the age of 21 from purchasing “non-intoxicating” 3.2 percent beer. Craig, a male between the age of 18 and 21 years, and Whitener, a licensed vendor sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the Oklahoma statute. They argued the gender differential between males and women was unconstitutional because it created resentful discrimination against males 18-20 years of age. Whitener brought suit against state official Boren claiming the law violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The state presented Statistical evidence that showed the discrimination was critical to ensuring traffic safety. At trial, the district court upheld the statute. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Issue: Did a statue prohibiting the sale of alcohol to an individual based on …show more content…
Application: In this case, the state of Oklahoma had reason to believe that the statue contributed significantly to the government’s goal of traffic safety and prohibited males under the age of 21 from buying “non-intoxicating” 3.2% beer. After reviewing all the facts, The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court.
Impact: This case reinforced the 14th amendment equal right protection requirement that no state shall deny to any person "the equal protection of the laws". If the Supreme Court had suppressed the rights of the appellants it would have compromised the future of equal rights among men and women. It would potentially allow such discriminations to occur in cases that would have followed.
Your views: This case is of noticeable significance largely due to the fact that it established a new standard for reviewing gender classifications: Intermediate scrutiny. I felt that the additional
Facts: An Oklahoma state statue prohibited males under the age of 21 from purchasing “non-intoxicating” 3.2 percent beer. Craig, a male between the age of 18 and 21 years, and Whitener, a licensed vendor sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the Oklahoma statute. They argued the gender differential between males and women was unconstitutional because it created resentful discrimination against males 18-20 years of age. Whitener brought suit against state official Boren claiming the law violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The state presented Statistical evidence that showed the discrimination was critical to ensuring traffic safety. At trial, the district court upheld the statute. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Issue: Did a statue prohibiting the sale of alcohol to an individual based on …show more content…
Application: In this case, the state of Oklahoma had reason to believe that the statue contributed significantly to the government’s goal of traffic safety and prohibited males under the age of 21 from buying “non-intoxicating” 3.2% beer. After reviewing all the facts, The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court.
Impact: This case reinforced the 14th amendment equal right protection requirement that no state shall deny to any person "the equal protection of the laws". If the Supreme Court had suppressed the rights of the appellants it would have compromised the future of equal rights among men and women. It would potentially allow such discriminations to occur in cases that would have followed.
Your views: This case is of noticeable significance largely due to the fact that it established a new standard for reviewing gender classifications: Intermediate scrutiny. I felt that the additional