Facts
- Oklahoma law permitted the sale of 3.2% beer to females at age 18 but prohibited sales to males until age 21.
- Curtis Craig, a male aged 18–20, and Carolyn Whitener, a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, challenged the statute under the Equal Protection Clause.
- The State defended the sex-based age differential as a traffic-safety measure, relying on arrest and injury statistics for young drivers.
- A three-judge federal district court upheld the statute, finding the sex classification substantially related to reducing traffic injuries.
- By Supreme Court review, Craig had turned 21; only declaratory and injunctive relief was sought.
Issues
- Whether a vendor regulated by the statute had standing to assert the equal protection rights of affected customers.
- Whether the case became moot as to the male customer once he reached the age limit.
- Whether Oklahoma’s sex-based age differential for purchasing 3.2% beer violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- Whether the Twenty-First Amendment alters equal protection review of state alcohol regulations.
Decision
- The Court held Craig’s claim moot because he turned 21 after jurisdiction was noted and only prospective relief was sought.
- The Court held Whitener had standing, including to assert the rights of male customers, because she faced economic injury from compliance or sanctions from noncompliance.
- The Court reversed and held the statute violated equal protection as impermissible sex discrimination against males aged 18–20.
- The Court accepted traffic safety as an important governmental objective but found the sex classification not substantially related to that objective.
- The Court rejected the argument that the Twenty-First Amendment displaced ordinary equal protection analysis for alcohol regulation.
Legal Principles
- Classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives (intermediate scrutiny).
- Statistical generalizations must show that sex is a sufficiently reliable proxy for the regulated conduct; weak correlations are insufficient to justify broad sex-based rules.
- The Twenty-First Amendment does not exempt state alcohol laws from Equal Protection Clause constraints.
- A regulated vendor may assert third-party standing to challenge restrictions that directly constrain the vendor’s market when the vendor faces injury from compliance or enforcement risk.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated Oklahoma’s sex-based beer purchasing ages, formalizing intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications and confirming that state alcohol regulations remain subject to equal protection review, while also permitting a vendor to raise customers’ equal protection rights.