United States v.

Virginia (aka VMI Case)

U.S. 1996

Facts:

The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was established in 1839 as one of America’s first state military
colleges, funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Its mission is to produce “citizen-soldiers”, men
prepared for civilian life and military service.” It accomplished that mission through extreme adversity. New
cadets were known as “rats,” and, for approximately 7 months, underwent a trial known as the “rat line,”
where they were exposed to physical and mental stress.

In 1990, VMI’s single-sex policy was finally challenged when a female high-school student, seeking
admission to VMI, filed a complaint with the Attorney General. She alleged that VMI’s exclusively male
admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. She was one of 347 women
who had sent inquiries to VMI, none had received responses.

Virginia argued that VMI’s “adversative” method of training was inherently unsuitable for women. It
argued that, not only did single-sex education yield important educational benefits, but those benefits could
not be made available to women without alterations that would necessarily destroy VMI’s program.

The Federal District Court ruled in favor of VMI, holding that a single-gender environment yields
substantial educational benefits. But the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The appellate court found
that the Commonwealth failed to show that VMI’s admissions policy advanced any state policy. Moreover,
it was contrary to the state’s announced commitment to non-discrimination and diversity in education. As a
remedial measure, Virginia proposed the creation of a parallel women’s program, called the Virginia
Women’s Institute of Leadership (VWIL). The 4th Circuit accepted that proposal, calling it “substantively
comparable.” In response, the Attorney General appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Did VMI represent a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?

Holding:

Yes.

In a 7 to 1 decision, the Court held that VMI’s male-only admissions policy violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, drew a clear rule:
under equal protection analysis, parties seeking to defend gender-based government action must
demonstrate “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the action. Here, Virginia failed to meet that standard.

First, Virginia failed to show that the male-only admissions policy advanced a state policy. In fact,
the policy was per-se counter to Virginia’s stated commitment to furthering diversity in education.

Furthermore, Virginia’s proposed remedy, the creation of a separate women’s institute, VWIL, was
insufficient because it could not offer the same benefits to women that VMI offered to men. VWIL would not
provide the same rigorous military training, academics, or alumni involvement that VMI provided. VWIL
would not require students to wear uniforms, eat together, or participate in any activities typical of a military
format.

For these reasons, the 4th Circuit’s finding that VWIL and VMI were “substantively comparable”
was misplaced, and the standard inconsistent with precedent. The appropriate remedy was to admit
qualified women to VMI. Here, Justice Ginsburg plainly stated the appropriate standard: all gender-based
classifications must be evaluated with “heightened scrutiny.” Borrowing from the ideas of constitutional
historian, Richard Morris, Justice Ginsburg wrote that, “a prime part of the history of our Constitution is the
story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.” Here,
“there is no reason to believe that the admission of women capable of all the activities required of VMI
cadets would destroy the Institute rather than enhance its capacity to serve the ‘more perfect Union.’”