Facts
- Mississippi University for Women (MUW), a state-supported public university, operated a baccalaureate School of Nursing that admitted only women under state law and university policy.
- Joe Hogan, a registered nurse and nursing supervisor, sought admission to MUW’s nursing program to obtain a baccalaureate degree.
- MUW denied Hogan admission solely because he was male, though he was otherwise qualified.
- MUW offered Hogan the option to attend classes as an auditor without receiving academic credit, but not to enroll for credit.
- Coeducational public nursing programs in Mississippi existed at other universities, but they were located a significant distance from Hogan’s hometown.
- The federal district court upheld MUW’s policy under rational-basis reasoning; the Fifth Circuit reversed on Equal Protection grounds.
Issues
- Whether a state statute and university policy excluding men from a public university’s nursing program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether the State showed an exceedingly persuasive justification demonstrating that the sex-based exclusion served important governmental objectives and was substantially related to achieving those objectives.
- Whether a statutory exemption in Title IX for certain single-sex admissions policies affects the Equal Protection analysis.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Hogan, holding MUW’s policy unconstitutional.
- The Court applied intermediate scrutiny to the sex-based classification and placed the burden on the State to justify the exclusion.
- The Court rejected the State’s claim that the women-only policy was compensatory for past discrimination against women, finding no showing that women suffered a relevant disadvantage in entering nursing.
- The Court concluded the exclusion tended to perpetuate the stereotype of nursing as a women-only profession rather than remedy discrimination.
- MUW’s practice of allowing men to audit classes undermined its asserted need for an all-female educational environment, further weakening any justification for excluding men from for-credit enrollment.
- The Court held that Title IX’s admissions exemption did not narrow or displace the Equal Protection Clause and could not validate an otherwise unconstitutional policy.
Legal Principles
- Sex-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause are subject to intermediate scrutiny and require an exceedingly persuasive justification.
- The government must show that the classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to achieving those objectives.
- A compensatory or remedial justification for a sex-based classification requires a showing that the benefited sex actually suffers a disadvantage related to the classification.
- Classifications resting on or reinforcing generalizations about gender roles fail Equal Protection review.
- Statutory permissions or exemptions under federal law do not alter the scope of Equal Protection constraints on state action.
Conclusion
The Court held that a state university may not deny otherwise qualified men admission to a for-credit nursing program based solely on sex because the State failed to provide an exceedingly persuasive justification under intermediate scrutiny, and the asserted remedial and statutory rationales did not sustain the exclusion under the Equal Protection Clause.