Craig v. Boren case brief summary
429 U.S. 190 (1976)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, a male between 18 and 21 years of age and a liquor vendor, filed an action in district court that sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of Okla. Stat. tit. 37, §§ 241 and 245 (1958 and Supp. 1976). Together, the statutes prohibited the sale of non-intoxicating three and two-tenths percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Appellants alleged that the statutes constituted invidious discrimination against males between 18 and 20 years of age. The district court sustained the constitutionality of the statutory differential and dismissed the action.
DISCUSSION
The Court reversed, holding that the gender-based differential that resulted from § 245 invidiously discriminated and constituted a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males who were 18 to 20 years of age. The Court held that gender did not represent a legitimate, accurate proxy for the regulation of drinking and driving, and therefore, the classification was not substantially related to the achievement of a legitimate government objective. The court also noted that U.S. Constitutional Amendment XXI did not save the gender-based discrimination from invalidation.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the district court's order that dismissed the action filed by appellants, a male between 18 and 21 years of age and a liquor vendor, which challenged the constitutionality of two state statutes that prohibited the sale of beer to males between the ages of 18 and 20 years because the statute discriminated on the basis of gender and was not substantially related to the achievement of a legitimate government objective.
429 U.S. 190 (1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, a male between 18 and 21
years of age and a liquor vendor, challenged the order of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma that
dismissed their action that challenged the constitutionality of Okla.
Stat. tit. 37, §§ 241 and 245 (1958 and Supp. 1976),
which prohibited the sale of three and two-tenths percent beer to
males under 21 years of age and females under 18 years of age.CASE FACTS
Appellants, a male between 18 and 21 years of age and a liquor vendor, filed an action in district court that sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of Okla. Stat. tit. 37, §§ 241 and 245 (1958 and Supp. 1976). Together, the statutes prohibited the sale of non-intoxicating three and two-tenths percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Appellants alleged that the statutes constituted invidious discrimination against males between 18 and 20 years of age. The district court sustained the constitutionality of the statutory differential and dismissed the action.
DISCUSSION
The Court reversed, holding that the gender-based differential that resulted from § 245 invidiously discriminated and constituted a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males who were 18 to 20 years of age. The Court held that gender did not represent a legitimate, accurate proxy for the regulation of drinking and driving, and therefore, the classification was not substantially related to the achievement of a legitimate government objective. The court also noted that U.S. Constitutional Amendment XXI did not save the gender-based discrimination from invalidation.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the district court's order that dismissed the action filed by appellants, a male between 18 and 21 years of age and a liquor vendor, which challenged the constitutionality of two state statutes that prohibited the sale of beer to males between the ages of 18 and 20 years because the statute discriminated on the basis of gender and was not substantially related to the achievement of a legitimate government objective.
No comments:
Post a Comment