ubeazy

Craig v. Boren

Facts

Oklahoma enacted a statute regulating the sale of certain alcoholic beverages based on the buyer’s sex. Specifically, the law allowed women to purchase “non-intoxicating” 3.2% beer at age 18, but required men to be 21 to purchase the same beverage.

The state justified the sex-based age distinction as a traffic safety measure. Oklahoma argued that young men were more likely than young women to drive drunk or be involved in alcohol-related traffic incidents, and therefore restricting beer sales to young men would promote public safety.

A male plaintiff between 18 and 21 challenged the law, arguing that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated based on sex. A licensed vendor also challenged the law because it restricted business sales to a subset of customers.

Oklahoma presented statistical evidence showing that men in the relevant age group were arrested for drunk driving more frequently than women. The Court was required to decide whether those statistics were sufficient to justify sex-based differential treatment under Equal Protection principles and what level of scrutiny applies to sex classifications.

Issues

Does a statute that treats men and women differently based on sex violate Equal Protection, and what level of scrutiny governs gender classifications?

Rule

Sex-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny.

To be constitutional, the government must show:

  1. the classification serves an important governmental objective, and

  2. the discriminatory means are substantially related to achieving that objective.

Application

The Court recognized that traffic safety and preventing drunk driving are important governmental objectives. However, the key question was whether Oklahoma’s sex-based classification was substantially related to those objectives.

Oklahoma relied on statistical evidence suggesting that young men were arrested for drunk driving more frequently than young women. The Court found this evidence insufficient. Even if there was some difference between men and women in the aggregate, the statistical correlation was not strong enough to justify categorical discrimination against all men aged 18–20.

The Court emphasized that Equal Protection does not allow the state to impose broad sex-based rules based on generalizations or imperfect correlations. The state must show that the sex classification meaningfully advances the stated objective, not merely that it is convenient or loosely supported by data.

Here, the evidence showed only a small percentage difference. The Court also noted that the law’s fit was poor: it targeted purchase of 3.2% beer but did not necessarily track the behavior Oklahoma claimed it sought to prevent. Many young men would not drive drunk, and some young women would. The law therefore imposed burdens on individuals based on sex rather than focusing directly on dangerous conduct.

Thus, while the state’s interest was important, the means were not substantially related. The Court refused to uphold a sex classification resting on weak statistical support and stereotyped assumptions about male behavior.

In future cases, Craig v. Boren becomes the case most commonly cited for formal adoption of intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications. It provides the standard test and helps structure exam analysis in any sex discrimination question.

Holding

The Court held that Oklahoma’s sex-based beer purchasing law violated the Equal Protection Clause. The statute failed intermediate scrutiny because the sex classification was not substantially related to the state’s asserted objective.

Court

The case was decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Court struck down Oklahoma’s statute and established intermediate scrutiny as the governing standard for sex-based classifications.

Exam Notes

  1. Core case establishing intermediate scrutiny for sex classifications

  2. Test: important objective + substantial relation

  3. Government cannot rely on weak statistical generalizations to justify sex discrimination

  4. Sex stereotypes and aggregate differences don’t justify categorical rules

  5. Frequently tested in Equal Protection essays and MBE-style hypos

  6. Often paired with United States v. Virginia (VMI) (strengthened intermediate scrutiny)

Shopping Cart