Entry
Reader's guide
Entries A-Z
Subject index
United States v. Virginia
United States v. Virginia (1996) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the ability of state officials to maintain public single-sex institutions of higher education. In VMI, the Court held that, as a matter of constitutional law, the Virginia Military Institute could not exclude women from enrolling as students. Insofar as the Court's judgment in VMI took the significant step of outlawing single-sex education at public colleges and universities, this entry examines its background, judicial analyses, and implications.
The VMI was founded in 1839 as a state-supported military school. Since that time, the institute has employed a rigorous curriculum, also referred to as the “adversative method,” which is designed to produce citizen-soldiers who become leaders in both military and civilian life. While VMI alumni include many prominent military generals, political leaders, and business executives, the institute did not admit women as students during its first 150 years of operation.
Facts of the Case
The vast majority of constitutional challenges involve private parties suing the government. Yet, VMI was an action by the federal government against the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 1990, the Justice Department, responding to a complaint from a female high school student, sued Virginia, contending that having an all-male institution of higher education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After a federal trial court in Virginia decided that the single-sex admissions policy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Circuit disagreed. The Fourth Circuit vacated the trial court's original order on the ground that commonwealth officials had not advanced a justification showing why they should offer a program for men and not for women. However, the Fourth Circuit did not order the admission of women. Rather, the court presented officials in Virginia with a choice: They could either admit women or establish a parallel program that was all female.
Virginia chose to establish a parallel program, the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership, at an all-female private institution, Mary Baldwin College. Although there were significant differences in the academic quality of the two programs, the federal trial court approved Virginia's alternative program. On appeal, a sharply divided Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
By a vote of seven to one, in an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, with Justice Thomas not participating, the Supreme Court reversed in striking down the Fourth Circuit's second order while reinstating its initial determination. According to the Court, in equal protection cases involving gender, state governments bear the burden of establishing “exceedingly persuasive” justifications for any gender classification. The Court explained that gender classifications are upheld only if classifications are substantially related to important governmental interests.
The Supreme Court then proceeded to reject each of the interests proffered by Virginia for wishing to continue to operate the VMI as an all-male institution. First, the Court found that prohibiting women from enrolling at the institute did not contribute to a diversity of educational opportunities in Virginia. Second, the Court rejected the idea that admitting women would require substantial changes to the institute's curriculum. In this regard, the Court noted that because women had successfully integrated into the federal service academies, the refusal to admit females as students was unconstitutional.
...
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Affirmative Action and Race-Based Admissions
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Disability
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Faculty Issues
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
- Knight v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
- National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
- Perry v. Sindermann
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
- Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Urofsky v. Gilmore
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Finance and Governance
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Gender Equity
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Religion and Freedom of Speech
- Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
- Bob Jones University v. United States
- Healy v. James
- Hunt v. McNair
- Locke v. Davey
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri
- Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
- Tilton v. Richardson
- Widmar v. Vincent
- Concepts, Theories, and Legal Principles
- Academic Abstention
- Academic Dishonesty
- Academic Freedom
- Affirmative Action
- Catalogs as Contracts
- Conflict of Commitment
- Conflict of Interest
- Copyright
- Disparate Impact
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Educational Malpractice
- Equal Protection Analysis
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education
- Fair Use
- Hate Crimes
- Intellectual Property
- Student Moral Development
- Tax Exemptions for Colleges and Universities
- Tenure
- U.S. Supreme Court Cases in Higher Education
- Zoning
- Constitutional Rights and Issues
- Affirmative Action
- Age Discrimination
- Bill of Rights
- Civil Rights Movement
- Disciplinary Sanctions and Due Process Rights
- Disparate Impact
- Drug Testing of Students
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Eleventh Amendment
- Equal Protection Analysis
- Federalism
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Faculty
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Students
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Hate Crimes
- Hostile Work Environment
- Loyalty Oaths
- Political Activities and Speech of Faculty Members
- Privacy Rights of Faculty Members
- Privacy Rights of Students
- Religious Activities on Campus
- Sexual Harassment of Students by Faculty Members
- Sexual Harassment, Peer-to-Peer
- Sexual Harassment, Quid Pro Quo
- Sexual Harassment, Same-Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- State Aid and the Establishment Clause
- Student Press
- Title IX and Athletics
- Title IX and Retaliation
- Title IX and Sexual Harassment
- Unions on Campus
- Faculty Rights
- Governance and Finance
- Academic Dishonesty
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Boards of Trustees
- Catalogs as Contracts
- Cheating and Academic Discipline
- Collective Bargaining
- Conflict of Commitment
- Conflict of Interest
- Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
- Due Process Rights in Faculty and Staff Dismissal
- Equal Pay Act
- Extracurricular Activities, Law, and Policy
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
- Grading Practices
- Graduation Requirements
- Hazing
- Hostile Work Environment
- Loans and Federal Aid
- Personnel Records
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- Student Press
- Tenure
- Unions on Campus
- Organizations and Institutions
- American Association of University Professors
- American Association of University Women
- Association for the Study of Higher Education
- Boards of Trustees
- Community or Junior Colleges
- Education Law Association
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities
- National Association of College and University Attorneys
- National Collegiate Athletic Association
- Proprietary or For-Profit Colleges and Universities
- Religious Colleges and Universities
- Single-Sex Colleges
- U.S. Department of Education
- Unions on Campus
- Primary Sources: Excerpts from Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases
- Berea College v. Kentucky
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
- Cannon v. University of Chicago
- DeFunis v. Odegaard
- Gratz v. Bollinger
- Grove City College v. Bell
- Grutter v. Bollinger
- Healy v. James
- Hunt v. McNair
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
- Locke v. Davey
- McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
- Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
- National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri
- Perry v. Sindermann
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis
- Sweatt v. Painter
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Tilton v. Richardson
- Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
- United States v. Virginia
- University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Religion and Freedom of Speech
- Academic Freedom
- Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education
- Federalism
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Religious Activities on Campus
- Religious Colleges and Universities
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- State Aid and the Establishment Clause
- Student Press
- Statutes
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
- Clery Act
- Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Equal Educational Opportunities Act
- Equal Pay Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
- Higher Education Act
- Immigration Reform and Control Act
- Morrill Acts
- National Labor Relations Act
- Rehabilitation Act, Section 504
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- Stafford Act
- Tax Exemptions for Colleges and Universities
- Title IX and Athletics
- Title IX and Retaliation
- Title IX and Sexual Harassment
- Title VI
- Title VII
- Student Rights and Welfare
- Academic Dishonesty
- Assistive Technology
- Cheating and Academic Discipline
- Cyberbullying
- Disciplinary Sanctions and Due Process Rights
- Disparate Impact
- Drug Testing of Students
- Extracurricular Activities, Law, and Policy
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Students
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Grading Practices
- Graduation Requirements
- Hate Crimes
- Hazing
- Loans and Federal Aid
- Privacy Rights of Students
- Sexual Harassment of Students by Faculty Members
- Sexual Harassment, Peer-to-Peer
- Sexual Harassment, Quid Pro Quo
- Sexual Harassment, Same-Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- Student Moral Development
- Student Press
- Student Suicides
- Student Teachers, Rights of
- Video Surveillance
- Technology
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
-
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches