Us V. 518 Us Vs Virginia Case Study

I. United States v. Virginia
II. 518 U.S. 515 (1996)
III. Facts: Virginia Military Institute (VMI) is a public institution that historically excluded women from admission. Their approach is based on “adversative” instruction with the aim of producing citizen-soldiers. Their admission policy would come into question, and in response to a US Court of Appeals ruling, the institute set up a separate female-only school – Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership, or VWIL. However, VWIL’s instruction and curricula differed from those of VMI’s. The US Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court.
IV. Issues: (1) Is VMI’s admission policy of excluding female prospective applicants exempt from 14th Amendment’s equal-protection due to their goals and methods of instruction? (2) Does the establishment of a separate, female-only institution provide an adequate alternative?
V. Decision and Action: (1) No. (2) No. It is so ordered.
VI. Reasoning: Per Ginsberg. VMI fails to offer requisite “exceedingly persuasive justification” for sex-based segregation. They argue that their unique method of instruction cannot be designed to include women and remain effective. The Court notes that gender segregation is not at all a novel approach, but one that had been common among the Commonwealth

schools in Virginia (most notably, the University of Virginia). This argument is rejected as unproven and a self-fulfilling prophecy like those seen in the Mississippi University for Women case. VWIL as a remedial plan is not satisfactory because it fails to compensate for the constitutional violation.
VII.

Concurring Opinion: Per Rehnquist. Rehnquist concurs with the decision, but not the analysis. VMI argued for its policy by saying that diversity of school institution types – coed and unisex – should exist. This is an acceptable argument, the only issue is that there was not a proportionate representation of female-only institutions to make up for those like VMI. VWIL was a valid remedial solution, despite what the majority may suggest, had it truly provide a comparable experience. The claim that single-sex education has benefits to some students is a valid one, too, but there is no proof that the adversative method can only work in a male-only

environment.
VIII. Dissenting Opinion: Per Scalia. In this ruling, the Court has departed from factual findings, past precedent, and history. Sex-classified laws have been reviewed using intermediate scrutiny, but the Court departs from that standard in this case towards strict-scrutiny. The facts show that single-sex education is highly beneficial, and so the state has an interest in offering them. This evidence provided satisfies intermediate scrutiny.
IX. Voting Coalitions: (7 to 1). For the majority, Rehnquist, Ginsberg, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens. For the dissent, Scalia. Justice Thomas recused himself from judgment; his son was enrolled at VMI at the time.
X. Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that VMI’s admission policy unconstitutionally violated the 14th Amendment equal-protection provision. Additionally, the establishment of VWIL was not accepted as a remedy. The school was left with the decision to become private or begin admitting women into its student-body, ultimately opting to open its doors to women.
XI. Free Space: I concur with the majority opinions. If VWIL had actually provided a comparable experience as VMI did, then that likely would have satisfied their first legal challenge. They failed to, however, and I see no point in having those who failed once to provide a remedy try again. And while single-sex institutions are well and good, I do not think public universities of this type should exist. By committing the government’s finite resources towards segregated schools, they just limit the options available to people. The existence of private universities with this policy more than suffice.