## Facts

- California Penal Code § 261.5 defined “unlawful sexual intercourse” as intercourse with a female under 18 who is not the perpetrator’s wife and imposed criminal liability only on males.
- Michael M., a 17½-year-old male, had sexual intercourse with Sharon, a 16-year-old female.
- Michael was charged under § 261.5; Sharon could not be prosecuted under the statute.
- Michael moved to set aside the information, arguing the male-only liability violated equal protection; the trial court denied the motion.
- The California Court of Appeal denied relief, and the California Supreme Court upheld the statute.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the equal protection challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether California’s male-only statutory rape statute violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sex.
2. Whether imposing criminal liability solely on males was substantially related to an important governmental objective.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that the statute did not violate equal protection because the sex classification was sufficiently related to the State’s objective of reducing teenage pregnancy.
- The plurality reasoned that teenage pregnancy imposes most direct physical and related consequences on females and that pregnancy operates as a deterrent for females but not for males.
- The Court rejected the argument that equal protection required extending criminal liability to females to cure underinclusiveness.
- Dissents argued the State failed to show a male-only law was more effective than a gender-neutral alternative and criticized punishing only one participant in consensual intercourse.

## Legal Principles

- Sex-based classifications are evaluated under intermediate scrutiny and must bear a substantial relationship to important governmental objectives.
- Equal protection does not require the law to treat groups as identical when they are differently situated with respect to the harm addressed.
- A legislature may target sanctions at the participant for whom deterrence is otherwise weaker when biological consequences place unequal burdens on the sexes.
- A statute is not unconstitutional merely because it is underinclusive; legislatures may address problems incrementally.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld California’s male-only statutory rape law, concluding that the sex classification was substantially related to the important state interest in preventing teenage pregnancy and protecting minor females from the consequences of early intercourse and pregnancy.


Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cnty., 450 U.S. 464 (1981)