Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County

Week 12 — Sex Discrimination — Stereotypes

Facts

  • California's Penal Code statutory-rape law applied only to men—only men could be prosecuted for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor female.
  • Michael M., a male defendant, challenged the statute as unconstitutional sex-based discrimination.
  • California's stated interest was preventing teen pregnancy.

Issue

Whether a sex-specific statutory-rape law is invalid under the Equal Protection Clause where the regulated activity affects men and women differently.

Holding

No. The classification was upheld.

Reasoning

  • A state action that classifies based on sex may be allowed if the sexes are not similarly situated with regard to the area being regulated.
  • Generally, this turns on biological differences (pregnancy and birth).
  • California had an important interest in preventing teen pregnancy.
  • Men and women are not similarly situated with regard to the risks of teen pregnancy: only women can become pregnant, which serves as a natural deterrent for women.
  • The statute imposed an additional deterrent on men, which was a permissible legislative judgment.

Notes

  • Michael M. is the leading "not similarly situated" justification case.
  • Reinforced in Rostker v. Goldberg.
  • Compare with Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (no biological-difference justification — sex classification struck down).
  • Compare with Nguyen v. INS (biological difference between mother and father at the moment of birth justified differential citizenship requirements).