Civil Rights and Liberties Paper - Lisinda Young
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Stark State College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
121
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by CorporalIronSalmon37
Lisinda Young
07/11/2023
Civil Rights and Liberties Paper
I have been asked to discuss the case of Craig v. Boren, a case about rights and liberties involved in an Oklahoma law that restricts the sale of generally non-alcoholic beer, specifically 3.2 beer, to minors. The law defined minors by sex, stating that a minor, for this law, was a male under the age of 21, and a female under the age of 18. Essentially, the law, for the purpose of buying this beer, classified females as being adults before males, rather than identifying the minors unable to purchase this beer as all persons under the same age restriction. The case was made in 1972 by Curtis Craig, a male under the age of 21, and Carolyn Whitener, a beer vendor who was prohibited from selling to the minor class of males under the law, as doing so would subject her business to penalties under the law, up to and including significant fines and/or loss of her liquor license. The defendant in the case was Governor David Boren, arguing for the enforcement of the law. Since the case sought to declare the law unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and the litigants wanted the law to be unenforceable for that reason, Oklahoma codes mandate that a case must first be heard by a panel of three judges. The case went before the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, with a panel of three judges, who declined the injunction, as the panel did not find the law as discriminatory, and as such did not find the law unconstitutional, and dismissed the case. Craig and Whitener appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case. However, the case wasn't heard until 1976, which raised a question of standing right away, since in the course of the 4 years making its way through the litigation process, Curtis Craig had obtained the age of 21, and therefore no longer had standing as a male under the age of 21.
His lawyers argued that he did have standing under the premise that the case was filed at the time when Craig was under the alleged discriminatory age restriction, but the Supreme Court decided he did not have standing in 1976 when the Supreme Court heard the case because he wasn't under 21 at that time. However, Carolyn Whitener did
have current standing for the case, since she and her business were still at risk of injury in the form of penalties under the law. It was then argued as to how the case related to previously determined cases based on race, at which Craig's lawyer stated that the issue at play was different from race because gender discrimination was based only on a person's gender, without regard to race, but it was still unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Arguments by lawyers for Governor Boren (State) attempted to site potential traffic-
related issues that were gender-based, stating that the majority of drivers on the road in 1976 were male, with DUI action cases being mainly brought against those male drivers
within that age range. However, the Court inquired as to whether or not males within the age restriction could wish to drink the beer when not driving, and the State conceded that there could be such males, but that they could be covered under parents deciding to give their children the beer, or they could get a female to purchase the beer for them. The Supreme Court decided that the law was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause based on Whitener's current and potential injury to her business based on the gender discriminatory law. So, what does that mean for us? This case showcased the importance of scrutinizing the wording and practice of older laws, to ensure that both the old law and any new laws based on them, should not contain discriminatory wording or effects that are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Scrutiny has been a basis for determining many issues before the courts, and prior to this case, there were only two types of scrutiny (or review) used to determine whether a law should be enforced. The lowest standard of scrutiny is Rational Basis, which means that before a case involving discrimination based on the protections of the 14th Amendment can be heard, there must first be established that there is a rational reason to bring the case – that there could be a rational reason to declare the law unconstitutional. Using the Rational Basis standard of scrutiny, the District Court, in this case, decided that the Craig v. Boren case didn't have a rational basis to proceed. At the time of this case, the only other type of scrutiny for cases was Strict Scrutiny, which would examine each and every detail of the law, and the complaint and attempt to
narrowly apply it to a constitutional right or freedom and decide if that narrow application
is grounds to determine the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not think that Craig v. Boren warranted this type of scrutiny. This gave rise to what is now the third type of scrutiny – Intermediate Scrutiny. It required that there be a middle ground in the way cases are reviewed and that they should have more than just a rational basis review, but not necessarily be subjected to a
strict scrutiny test. The Supreme Court found that the Craig v. Boren case did have a rational basis for contesting the law, which, at that time, Curtis Craig no longer had, but Carolyn Whitener did. However, the concern addressed a state law, not a federal one, and the Supreme Court did not feel like it deserved the strict scrutiny test to be declared
unconstitutional and sent back to the State of Oklahoma for review and revision. The second thing this case did was address traditional gender stereotypes. In the arguments in the case, the State attempted to persuade the Supreme Court that males under the age of 21 were more prone to DUI activities than women of the same age were. This was, in fact, one of the rare instances in which males were actually the gender discriminated against. In most cases, the female gender was discriminated against for all manner of reasons, ranging from body types to emotional states, and even including menstrual cycles as a basis to discriminate. It is these types of discrimination that gave rise to the Women's Rights Movement. With this law, Oklahoma was seeming to say that there was no harm or injury in the law if it were men that were the subject of the lesser freedom. That it was ok to say that men
couldn't do something, like buy non-intoxicating beer, if they didn't discriminate against a
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
protected class of people in the 14th Amendment. At the time, men were not considered a protected class, BUT the law was still discriminatory in nature. By deciding that this case was unconstitutional, the opinion made the "shall not discriminate based on gender" part of the 14th Amendment clear that it does apply to men as well and was not just an arbitrary protection for women only. This may have played a significant role later in cases involving men concerning gay rights, marriage, and even adoption in later years. Gay relationships between men have often been the subject of discrimination, far more than those of women's same-sex
relationships, for many years, and they continue to have to fight against this type of bias. Gay men have had to fight for their rights to even be served in restaurants, go to church, and even purchase wedding cakes. These cases are still being litigated today, and there's quite a percentage that must be taken to the Supreme Court for final arbitration on what is and is not discrimination. You might be asking; how did this end up in gay rights? Isn't that sexual orientation discrimination? The answer is that it's both. Gay rights generally pertain to all of LGBTQ's denominations, but if you care to look, you'll find that there's a disproportionate number of discrimination cases brought by same-sex men over same-
sex women. Remember, though, that not every discrimination occurrence is brought to court. There is quite a lot that happens outside the courtroom, but only the ones brought
to court can help change things for a better future.
References and Citations:
Whang. (1998, January 1). Digitalgeorgetown Home. DigitalGeorgetown Home. https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/1051413
Take online courses. earn college credit. Research Schools, Degrees & Careers. Study.com | Take Online Courses. Earn College Credit. Research Schools, Degrees & Careers. (n.d.). https://study.com/learn/lesson/strict-scrutiny-test-levels-
examples.html#:~:text=What%20is%20an%20example%20of,speech%20and
%20freedom%20of%20assembly
Take online courses. earn college credit. Research Schools, Degrees & Careers. Study.com | Take Online Courses. Earn College Credit. Research Schools, Degrees & Careers. (n.d.-a). https://study.com/learn/lesson/rational-basis-test-examples-
analysis.html#:~:text=Rational%20basis%20scrutiny%20is%20the,or%20attempted
%20regulation%20of%20speech
.
Craig V. (n.d.). http://augustana.net/users/Podehnel/cases/Craig%20ed.htm
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). Justia Law. (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/190/#:~:text=This%20action%20was
%20brought%20in,licensed%20vendor%20of%203.2%25%20beer
.
{{meta.pagetitle}}. {{meta.siteName}}. (n.d.). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-628
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help