explaining that the purpose of giving heightened scrutiny to sex- or gender-based classifications “is to assure that the validity of such a classification is determined through reasoned analysis rather than through the mechanical application of traditional, often inaccurate, assumptions about the proper roles of men and women”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the purpose of giving heightened scrutiny to sex- or gender-based classifications “is to assure that the validity of such a classification is determined through reasoned analysis rather than through the mechanical application of traditional, often inaccurate, assumptions about the proper roles of men and women”
- concluding that "compensating] for discrimination against women” could not be the "actual purpose” behind the policy of excluding men from the Mississippi University for Women School of Nursing, because statistics showed that women had long dominated the field of nursing
- holding that gender classifications are constitutional only if they serve "`important governmental objectives and . . . the discriminatory means employed' are `substantially related to the achievement of those objectives' " (citation omitted)
- explaining that “[t]he purpose” of intermediate scrutiny is to make sure that sex-based classifications are based on “reasoned analysis rather than ... traditional, often inaccurate, assumptions about the proper roles of men and women.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice Burger,
dissenting.
I agree generally with Justice Powell’s dissenting opinion. I write separately, however, to emphasize that the Court’s holding today is limited to the context of a professional nursing school. Ante, at 723, n. 7, 727. Since the Court’s opinion relies heavily on its finding that women have traditionally dominated the nursing profession, see ante, at 729-731, it suggests that a State might well be justified in maintaining, for example, the option of an all-women’s business school or liberal arts program.