# Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

> Supreme Court of the United States · July 1, 1982 · 458 U.S. 718

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428933

## Case

- **Full name:** MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN Et Al. v. HOGAN
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** July 1, 1982
- **Citations:** 458 U.S. 718; 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,868; 50 U.S.L.W. 5068; 102 S. Ct. 3331; 73 L. Ed. 2d 1090; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 157
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Burger
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Brennan, White, Marshall, Stevens, Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 667 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428933

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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, a…
- 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)
- 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.”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9428933. Public record. Not legal advice.