United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264, 135 L. Ed. 2d 735 (1996)

Facts

United States sued Commonwealth of Virginia alleging equal protection violation in maintaining military college exclusively for males. 

The U.S. District Court entered judgment for Commonwealth. 

Appeal was taken. 

The Fourth Circuit Court vacated and remanded. 

On remand, the Commonwealth moved for approval of a proposed remedial plan, and the District Court approved proposal. Appeal was taken.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. 

United States sought certiorari.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Holding

(1) Commonwealth failed to show exceedingly persuasive justification for excluding women from citizen-soldier program offered at Virginia military college in violation of equal protection;

(2) remedial plan offered by Commonwealth to create separate program for women at another college did not afford both genders benefits comparable in substance to survive equal protection evaluation; and

(3) use of substantive comparability inquiry to review remedial plan was plain error.

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976)

Facts

Male between the ages of 18 and 21, along with a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Oklahoma statutes prohibiting the sale of 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 and females under the age of 18. 

A three-judge District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied relief and plaintiffs appealed. 

Holding

• the male plaintiff, who had attained the age of 21 after the Supreme Court had noted probable jurisdiction, did not have standing; 
• the vendor did have standing; 
• gender-based classifications must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives; 
• statistical evidence as to incidence of drunken driving among males and females between the ages of 18 and 21 was insufficient to support the gender-based discrimination arising from the statutes in question; and 
• the Twenty-First Amendment did not save the invidious gender-based discrimination from invalidation as a denial of equal protection.

Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 127 S. Ct. 2738, 168 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2007)

Facts: 

Parents brought action against school district challenging, under Equal Protection Clause, student assignment plan that relied on racial classification to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. 

The U.S. District Court entered summary judgment for school district, and the Ninth Circuit, on rehearing en banc, ultimately affirmed.

In separate action, another parent brought similar suit against school board that used racial classification in student assignment plan for elementary school assignments and transfer requests.

The U.S. District Court upheld assignment plan, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases.

Holdings: 

1. parents had standing;
2. allegedly compelling interest of diversity in higher education could not justify districts' use of racial classifications in student assignment plans, abrogating Comfort v. Lynn School Comm., 418 F.3d 1; and
3. districts failed to show that use of racial classifications in their student assignment plans was necessary to achieve their stated goal of racial diversity.

Reversed and remanded.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2003)

Facts
Law school applicants who were denied admission challenged race-conscious admissions policy of state university law school, alleging that the admissions policy encouraging student body diversity violated their equal protection rights.

 The US District Court held that the law school's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions was unlawful and enjoined law school from using race as a factor in its admissions decisions.

Appeal was taken.

The Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment and vacated the injunction. Certiorari was granted.

Holding

1. law school had a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body; and 
2. admissions program was narrowly tailored to serve its compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, and thus did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S. Ct. 2097, 132 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1995)

Facts
Subcontractor that was not awarded guardrail portion of federal highway project brought action challenging constitutionality of federal program designed to provide highway contracts to disadvantaged business enterprises.  
The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and subcontractor appealed.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, and certiorari was granted.  

Holding
(1) subcontractor had standing to seek forward-looking declaratory and injunctive relief;  
(2) all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by reviewing court under strict scrutiny, overruling Metro Broadcasting, 497 U.S. 547, 110 S.Ct. 2997, 111 L.Ed.2d 445; and  
(3) remand was required to determine whether challenged program satisfied strict scrutiny. 

Vacated and remanded.

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 706, 102 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1989)

Facts

Bidder brought suit challenging city's plan requiring prime contractors awarded city construction contracts to subcontract at least 30% of the dollar amount of each contract to one or more “Minority Business Enterprises.”

The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of city. Bidder appealed.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. 

Certiorari was granted.

The Supreme Court remanded case for further consideration.

On remand, the Court of Appeals struck down the set-aside program, and probable jurisdiction was noted. 

Holding

The Supreme Court held that:

1. city failed to demonstrate compelling governmental interest justifying the plan, and
2. plan was not narrowly tailored to remedy effects of prior discrimination.

Affirmed.