Sexual Equality Based on Craig v Boren Case

beer. However, the two partners were not contented with Oklahoma statutory scheme which barred the trade of 3. alcoholic drinks to males less than the age of 21 and women at the age of less than 18 years old1. For that reason, on December 1972, the latter hired Fred Gilbert, an attorney to file a case in the United States District Court against Western District of Oklahoma. The chief aim of the suit was to seek declaratory as well as, injunctive relief against the implementation of the statute that barred bar vendors from selling 3. The salient factor that frustrated Walker was that the statute outlawed the trading of 3. alcoholic beverages to males under the age of 21, but the Oklahoma statute did not forbid the latter from having or drinking it. Consequently, if a male aged less than 21 years of age wanted some beer, he could efficiently use an 18-year-old female to make the purchase.

This was a trick that Walker described as both hypocritical and corrupting. Carolyn Whitener was reluctant to join Walker to file the case against the defective Oklahoma statute since she had managed to sell beer to scores of college students for a decade. It is prudent to understand that the case initially started as Walker v. Hall and later it changed to Craig v. Boren. Fred Gilbert presented the case before the Lower Federal Court with an objective of challenging the Twenty-First Amendment specifically section 2 which asserted that Carriage, importation, use or possession of intoxicating alcoholic beverages to any territory within America is in violation of the state laws and therefore it is prohibited5. Section II: Analysis of Court’s Decision Judge Stephen S. A three appellate panel of judges was convened to handle an appeal made by attorney Gilbert.

Gilbert asserted that Judge Chandler made a mistake to dismiss his complaint since the State’s statistical evidence used against his claim was not satisfactory. For that reason, Gilbert kept pressing for his substantive arguments. The State responded by stating that there was no fundamental right to buy alcoholic beverages under the equal protection clause and referenced its regulatory power from the Twenty-First Amendment. The State went further to cite Goeseart v. After the district court decision, the plaintiffs decided to petition the case in the United States Supreme Court. Before the court had made the decision, there was a change in the plaintiffs for technical reasons. The change in plaintiffs took place when Mark Walker attained 21 years of age thus indicating that he can now legally purchase beer. According to Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution, it authorizes the states’ courts to decide “cases” and “controversies.

” This indicates that any dispute presented in a court of law must be real as well as, concrete and not hypothetical. Moreover, Gilbert was worried about using male aged between 18-20 years of age to challenge the Oklahoma law since the court penalize the seller of alcoholic drinks and not the under-aged males. To curb the problem, Carolyn Whitener joined the case as a new plaintiff, and therefore, the case managed to proceed further without the risk of getting dismissed because of the mootness hitch. Finally, the case of Craig et al. v. Boren was debated in front of the Supreme Court on October 1976. Nevertheless, if the court was willing to proceed, Burger claimed that he might consider the case in favor of the appellants, probably on the foundation of the rationality standard.

Other Justices that favored the dismal of the case were Justices Blackmun, Powell and Rehnquist. Justice Rehnquist strongly believed that Oklahoma law should remain in effect to ensure rationality standard is maintained12. On the other hand, the five remaining Justices insisted that the Oklahoma law was biased and therefore it should be struck down. However, the Justices held different views regarding the applicable standard of review to be employed. Boren case after the Supreme Court had overturned the ruling of the district court. The salient finding of the fact is that the Court alleged that the ideal standard of review of prejudice based on gender is intermediate scrutiny. It was also held that under this kind of investigation, the grouping has to be significantly correlated with achieving a vital government purpose.

The Supreme Court was made to understand by the Governor of Oklahoma State that the government made an effort to mitigate reckless driving under the influence of alcohol which was based on statistical evidence. The statistical evidence revealed that. Another fundamental significance under the case of Craig v. Boren is that for the first time in history, the Supreme Court recognized persons affected directly by law have a right to stand and defend the rights of "third parties" in gender-based cases. Moreover, it was viewed that the Twenty-First Amendment could not be petitioned to review the rights protected within the equal protection clause. Another focal development that cropped up after this case was the establishment of "middle-rank scrutiny" for gender discrimination cases17. It was held that no longer would statutory taxonomies based upon gender be judged presumptively lawful and supported under the principles of judiciousness and minimal analysis.

Additionally, it was observed that the potential to employ heightened scrutiny to judicial classifications apart from gender became almost straight away evident. This was demonstrated through the illegitimacy23. The court instructed that any classifications centered on illegitimacy be "significantly correlated to a legal state interest. The instructions offered by the Supreme Court depicted that illegitimacy was now partly-suspect grouping required to be subjected to intermediate scrutiny24. Several developments emanate after the Craig v. Darcy. R. and Jenny Sanbrano. Oklahoma in the Development of Equal Rights: The ERA, 3. Beer, Juvenile Justice and Craig v. Gilbert. Frcderick. P. Brief of Appellants in the Supreme Court of the United States: Craig v. Boren. Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan 458 U. S. Nashville Gas Co. v. Stephen L. The Supreme Court in the Federal Judicial System.

thed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall (1993). Rosenbloom, David H.