Craig v. Boren

justice’s strategic interaction will mainly be discussed. The author mainly uses the case of Craig v. Boren, among others, to argue the strategic account theory. Therefore it is important to understand the case. Craig v. Boren dealt with an Oklahoma law that set different drinking ages for men and women. Men were allowed to buy alcohol at the age of twenty-one and women at the age of eighteen. Curtis Craig wanted to buy alcohol and a vendor of a store wanted to sell him the alcoholic beverage. They

classifications in the case Craig v. Boren. The decision struck down a statute that allowed women over the age of eighteen to purchase beer but only men over the age of twenty-one. Using this intermediate scrutiny, the Court has invalidated gender segregation across the board. However, while this heightened level of scrutiny has drastically helped women, it has not been equal in its effect on men. Since Craig, the Court has upheld a requirement that only men register for the draft (Rostker v. Goldberg) and

argument was about equal pay, and the court cases that helped women by using the ERA. Our argument about equal pay was supported by lots of research and facts. The two main court cases we picked were Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson in 1986 and Craig v. Boren. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson case found that a claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that may be brought under Title VII of

treatment couldn’t be based on immutable distinctions, such as race and gender, because those fixed distinctions are uncontrollable and unrelated to ability. In the case of Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), the Supreme Court was just one vote short of adopting gender as a suspect classification. In United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), women rights supporters were very pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling and remain

paved the way to abolish slavery and segregation, thereby establishing rights regardless of race. During this period landmark cases were argued within the Supreme Court that we still look upon as primary authority today, such as the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Women gained equal protection as well, and eventually the rights to vote and own property due to the equal protection clause, so one may not discriminate due to sex. Disabled individuals followed

“heightened scrutiny”. Firstly, the intermediate scrutiny test was applied in the case Craig v. Boren in 1976. It was applied because of statute discrimination on the basis of gender. Also, courts apply intermediate scrutiny test to the cases, which are related to the violation of the first amendment. Among such cases were: Us West, Inc. v. United States (1994), Am. Library Ass’n v. Reno (1994), MD II Entertainment, Inc. v. Dallas (5th Cir. 1994) (Hashmall, IS). The third level is known as rational basis

necessary and narrowly tailored to advance its objectives only under strict scrutiny. Where the classification is not invidious, not selecting the least discriminatory means would not necessarily render the statute violative of equal protection. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S. Ct. 2646 (1981). As established supra, it is the intermediate scrutiny standard that applies to the present issue, and the City only needs to prove that its objective is important and the statutory classification is substantially

for consumption at home under adult supervision, medical necessity, and other reasons. If parents allow their teenagers to consume alcohol, then we are saying that it is acceptable for a 10 year old to drink beer. In 1976, US Supreme Court case Craig v. Boren ruled 7-2 that this age difference violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment (American Medical Association). Lowering the minimum legal drinking age from 21 will not stop teen drinking. For example, President Bush’s twin

different states.While most of the states have a drinking age of 21 years old, illinois(1933-1961) and Oklahoma (1933-1976) setup the minimum drinking age of 21 for men and 18 for women. That difference finally lead to the 1976 US Supreme Court case Craig v. Boren, which states the alcohol drinking age differences between men and women violate the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment of American Constitution, and 30 states lowered their minimum drinking age for both men and women to 18 to fix

This makes it difficult for courts in defining the lines of equal treatment based on gender. (PrisonerResource) In Craig v. Boren, the court rejected strict scrutiny as a standard in equal protection claims based on gender (craigvboren). Something particular to prison inmates seeking equal protection relief, is that they must demonstrate that "there is no rational relation