Appellants
Curtis Craig, for men between the ages of 18 and 21 wanting to purchase 3.2 percent beer in the state of Oklahoma and Ms. Whitener, a licensed vendor for3.2 percent beer, for other vendors.
Appellee
David Boren, Governor of Oklahoma
Appellants' Claim
That Oklahoma laws prohibiting the sale of 3.2 percent beer to males under 21and females under 18 discriminated against males between the ages of 18 and21.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants
Frederick P. Gilbert
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
James H. Gray
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), ThurgoodMarshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
5 October 1976
Decision
That the Oklahoma laws restricting the sale of 3.2 percent beer to males over21 and females over 18 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of gender.
Significance
That the gender classification in the laws did not serve "important governmental objectives" in order to be exempt from the Equal Protection Clause, nor did the state's power to regulate alcoholic beverages exempt it from this clause.
In the 1970s, the state of Oklahoma allowed the sale of what is known as 3.2percent beer to individuals under the age of 21. This was justified in that the beer did not necessarily cause intoxication since the percentage of actualalcohol was relatively low. The Oklahoma statute governing these sales madeit legal for males over the age of 21, and females over the age of 18 to purchase this beer.
On 20 December 1972, Curtis Craig, a male between the ages of 18 and 21 and Ms. Whitener, a licensed 3.2 percent beer vendor, brought suit in the DistrictCourt for the Western District of Oklahoma. They sought Craig's exemption from Oklahoma against the enforcement of this law on the grounds that it discriminated against men between the ages of 18 and 21 and was therefore unconstitutional. A three-judge court dismissed their case, deciding the law was constitutional.
Craig and Whitener appealed directly to the Supreme Court, since the suit questioned state law. On 20 December 1976, the Court reversed the district court's decision. The opinion was written by Justice Brennan and supported by White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, and Blackmun. By the time the suit had reachedthe Supreme Court, Craig had reached the age of 21 and could legally drink per the Oklahoma law. Therefore, the Court found his suit moot or insignificantsince the law no longer affected him and he had only sought relief from thelaw. However, Whitener could seek relief from the law since she was subject to the loss of her vendor license for violating it.
In order for a gender-based classification such as the one in Oklahoma to beexempt from the Equal Protection Clause, the state needed to show that the classification served key government goals such as the protection of its citizens. Oklahoma claimed that their goal in developing the law was to improve traffic safety. This was based on statistics that showed that .18 percent of females and 2 percent of males ages 18-21 were arrested for driving while underthe influence of alcohol. The majority of the justices found this to be insignificant, since the statutes affected a much larger number of citizens than had actually been shown to be delinquent. In addition, 3.2 percent beer was not found to be necessarily intoxicating, so the statistic did not necessarilyapply to the statute. Finally, the state's claim to broad power in controlling the sale, purchase, and consumption of alcohol within Oklahoma under the Twenty-first Amendment did not allow it to discriminate in these areas.
Justices Burger and Rehnquist disagreed with the ruling for different reasons. Burger felt the vendor should not be allowed to "assert the constitutionalrights of her customers." Rehnquist thought the state had a rational reason for the statute and should therefore be constitutional under the "rational basis" test of equal protection. In any case, the state of Oklahoma, along withother states with similar gender-based alcohol laws, needed to review and revise their statutes.
Related Cases
Curtis Craig, for men between the ages of 18 and 21 wanting to purchase 3.2 percent beer in the state of Oklahoma and Ms. Whitener, a licensed vendor for3.2 percent beer, for other vendors.
Appellee
David Boren, Governor of Oklahoma
Appellants' Claim
That Oklahoma laws prohibiting the sale of 3.2 percent beer to males under 21and females under 18 discriminated against males between the ages of 18 and21.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants
Frederick P. Gilbert
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
James H. Gray
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), ThurgoodMarshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
5 October 1976
Decision
That the Oklahoma laws restricting the sale of 3.2 percent beer to males over21 and females over 18 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of gender.
Significance
That the gender classification in the laws did not serve "important governmental objectives" in order to be exempt from the Equal Protection Clause, nor did the state's power to regulate alcoholic beverages exempt it from this clause.
In the 1970s, the state of Oklahoma allowed the sale of what is known as 3.2percent beer to individuals under the age of 21. This was justified in that the beer did not necessarily cause intoxication since the percentage of actualalcohol was relatively low. The Oklahoma statute governing these sales madeit legal for males over the age of 21, and females over the age of 18 to purchase this beer.
On 20 December 1972, Curtis Craig, a male between the ages of 18 and 21 and Ms. Whitener, a licensed 3.2 percent beer vendor, brought suit in the DistrictCourt for the Western District of Oklahoma. They sought Craig's exemption from Oklahoma against the enforcement of this law on the grounds that it discriminated against men between the ages of 18 and 21 and was therefore unconstitutional. A three-judge court dismissed their case, deciding the law was constitutional.
Craig and Whitener appealed directly to the Supreme Court, since the suit questioned state law. On 20 December 1976, the Court reversed the district court's decision. The opinion was written by Justice Brennan and supported by White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, and Blackmun. By the time the suit had reachedthe Supreme Court, Craig had reached the age of 21 and could legally drink per the Oklahoma law. Therefore, the Court found his suit moot or insignificantsince the law no longer affected him and he had only sought relief from thelaw. However, Whitener could seek relief from the law since she was subject to the loss of her vendor license for violating it.
In order for a gender-based classification such as the one in Oklahoma to beexempt from the Equal Protection Clause, the state needed to show that the classification served key government goals such as the protection of its citizens. Oklahoma claimed that their goal in developing the law was to improve traffic safety. This was based on statistics that showed that .18 percent of females and 2 percent of males ages 18-21 were arrested for driving while underthe influence of alcohol. The majority of the justices found this to be insignificant, since the statutes affected a much larger number of citizens than had actually been shown to be delinquent. In addition, 3.2 percent beer was not found to be necessarily intoxicating, so the statistic did not necessarilyapply to the statute. Finally, the state's claim to broad power in controlling the sale, purchase, and consumption of alcohol within Oklahoma under the Twenty-first Amendment did not allow it to discriminate in these areas.
Justices Burger and Rehnquist disagreed with the ruling for different reasons. Burger felt the vendor should not be allowed to "assert the constitutionalrights of her customers." Rehnquist thought the state had a rational reason for the statute and should therefore be constitutional under the "rational basis" test of equal protection. In any case, the state of Oklahoma, along withother states with similar gender-based alcohol laws, needed to review and revise their statutes.
Related Cases
- Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, California, 450 U.S. 464 (1981).
- Murphy v. Edmonds, 601 A.2d 102 (1992).
User Comments Add a comment…