United States v. Virginia

The court ruled that the exclusion of women from the type of education provided at V.M.I. violated the Equal Protection Clause, but it also found that single-gender enrollment formed the basis of "the unique characteristics of V.M.I.'s program." But admitting women would so change V.M.I. that their admission would destroy the "unique characteristics" women sought. Therefore, Virginia's violation of the Fourteenth Amendment did not necessarily lay in its failure to admit women to V.M.I. Rather, the violation lay in its failure to provide women with an equal opportunity to develop the leadership and other skills developed by men at the school.

Niemeyer wrote that the court would "not order that women be admitted to V.M.I. if alternatives are available" but would instead remand the case to the district court "to give to the commonwealth the responsibility to select a course it chooses, so long as the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment are satisfied."

Among the means of bringing V.M.I. into compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment, Niemeyer suggested that Virginia "might properly decide to admit women to V.M.I. and adjust the program to implement that choice, or it might establish parallel institutions or parallel programs, or it might abandon state support of V.M.I., leaving V.M.I. the option to pursue its own policies as a private institution."

V.M.I. requested a hearing en banc, or by the full circuit court, which was denied. Virginia and V.M.I. subsequently established a state-funded military-style program for women at Mary Baldwin College, a private women's college in Staunton, Virginia. The program was approved by the federal court and began operation in the summer of 1995. Virginia nonetheless appealed the federal circuit court ruling to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.