Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Week 12 — Sex Discrimination

Facts

Mississippi University for Women (MUW) admitted only women into its registered-nursing (RN) program.
A male applicant challenged the women-only policy under the Equal Protection Clause.
MUW argued the policy was a remedial measure to compensate women for past discrimination.

Whether a state university's women-only nursing program constitutes a permissible remedial sex classification.

No. The policy violated the EPC.

Review under intermediate scrutiny requires a showing of an "exceedingly persuasive justification."
Valid government objective: compensating for discrimination the benefited class actually suffered in the past.
The specific benefited class of women/men must have actually been disadvantaged in the past.
Stated differently: the members of the gender benefited by the classification must actually suffer a disadvantage in the specific area the statute regulates.
Start with what is being regulated, then determine if the benefitted class was harmed in the past.
There was no evidence women were discriminated against in the field of nursing — if anything, the policy reinforced the stereotype that nursing is a "woman's job."
The Court also found that men had no effect on the educational environment (substantial-relation prong); therefore, denying men served no valid educational purpose.

Reconciled with Califano v. Webster: the gender class benefitting from MUW's law had never experienced discrimination in nursing, so there was no need for a remedial measure. In Webster, the SS policy applied to all women, who have historically suffered economic discrimination.
See also Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) (SS provisions allowing only widowed mothers to claim survivor benefits unconstitutional, based on stereotypes that only male earnings are vital).
Takeaway: any law that reinforces gender stereotypes will likely be struck down under intermediate scrutiny.