CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2003
Assignment #34
[More on Gender Classifications]
Rostker V. Goldberg, p. 762 (1981) [excerpt not
assigned, discussed in U.S. v. Virginia]
-
What regulation, with what purpose?
-
Is the purpose an important one?
-
Is the classification substantially related to the purpose?
-
Would a gender-neutral classification have been equally effective
to achieve the government's purpose?
-
What role does gender-differentiation within the military
play in the evaluation of the gender classification actually at issue?
Should the current assignment of roles itself be evaluated under equal
protection criteria in this case?
-
should it matter that men, not women, are complaining here?
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, p. 764
(1982) [excerpt not assigned]
-
consider the following justifications for a women-only nursing
school:
-
remedy past discrimination against women in society
-
protect women students from the disruptive presence of men
-
should it matter that there are co-educational nursing programs
at other public universities in the state?
UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA, p. 768 (1996).
-
what exactly is the "adversative method" of instruction employed
at VMI?
-
would a parallel women-only program have satisfied the Court,
if the "adversative method" had been employed in it? To what extent does
the majority call single-sex education into question?
-
should the state have relied on Rostker to justify
the VMI program? Is that the point of Scalia's dissent?
-
what about the other two alternatives offered to VMI by the
trial court:
-
withdraw state support and go private, soliciting funds from
loyal alumni?
-
admit women to the VMI program?
-
Will admitting women in fact cause an alteration of the program
which will impair the effectiveness of the "adversative method"?
-
If so, is that an argument for or against the existing VMI
program?
NGUYEN V. INS, Supp. p. 68 (2001)
1. What regulation,
with what purpose? Does it employ a gender classification?
2. Does plaintiff
have standing to assert this gender discrimination claim?
3. Is the gender
classification substantially related to important governmental purposes?
Are there alternative, nondiscriminatory
means available? O’Connor
4. Assuming a DP/EP
violation, can courts grant the relief sought? Scalia said no; why
not?
5. Should the federal
government be subject to lesser scrutiny in immigration matters?
The Equal Rights Amendment, p. 786
-
Was the ERA unnecessary, in light of the S. Ct.'s EP decisions?
-
Some would like it to be re-proposed. Should its proponents
reformulate it? If so, how?