## Facts

- Michigan enacted a bartender-licensing rule for cities with populations of 50,000 or more.
- The rule barred women from obtaining bartender licenses unless the applicant was the wife or daughter of the male owner of a licensed liquor establishment.
- Valentine Goesaert and other affected women (including women connected to bar operations) challenged the restriction.
- The defendants were members of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission charged with enforcing the rule.
- Plaintiffs sought to enjoin enforcement, alleging the sex-based licensing limitation denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by denying bartender licenses to women generally, while allowing licenses only to women who are the wife or daughter of the male owner of the establishment.
2. Whether the State’s differing treatment of women bartenders, despite permitting women to work as waitresses where liquor is served, renders the classification unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief and upheld the statute.
- The Court held the classification had a reasonable basis and therefore did not violate equal protection.
- The Court treated liquor regulation as an area of especially broad legislative authority and applied highly deferential review.
- The Court rejected arguments that the law was invalid due to under-inclusiveness or imperfect line-drawing.
- A dissent would have found the statute’s distinctions arbitrary and inconsistent with equal protection.

## Legal Principles

- Under equal protection rational-basis review, a statutory classification is constitutional if any reasonable basis can support it; the Constitution does not require precise or comprehensive line-drawing.
- A legislature may address perceived harms incrementally and need not choose the most sweeping or internally uniform regulatory approach.
- Courts generally will not probe legislative motives or “cross-examine” lawmakers’ judgments when a plausible rationale exists, particularly in liquor regulation.
- A state may distinguish among groups within a broader regulated class if it can reasonably assume different risk profiles (here, treating wives and daughters of male owners as presenting different concerns than other women in bartending roles).

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Michigan’s restriction on women’s bartender licenses, concluding that the wife-or-daughter exception rested on a permissible, rational legislative judgment in the regulation of liquor and therefore did not deny equal protection.


Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948)