458 U.S. 718 (1982)
In 1884, the Mississippi Legislature created the Mississippi Industrial Institute and College for the Education of White Girls of the State of Mississippi, now the oldest state-supported all-female college in the United States and known today as Mississippi University for Women (MUW).1 The school has limited its enrollment to women since its founding.2
In 1971, MUW established a School of Nursing initially offering a 2-year associate degree.3 Three years later the school added a 4-year baccalaureate program in nursing and today also offers a graduate program.4 Joe Hogan is a registered nurse who does not hold a baccalaureate degree in nursing.5 Since 1974 he has worked as a nursing supervisor in a medical center in Columbus, the city where MUW is located.6
In 1979 Hogan applied for admission to the MUW School of Nursing's baccalaureate program.7 Although otherwise qualified, he was denied admission solely because of his sex.8 School officials informed him that he could audit courses but could not enroll for credit.9 Hogan filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi claiming that the single-sex admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.10 He sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensatory damages.11
Following a hearing, the District Court denied preliminary injunctive relief.12 When Hogan offered no further evidence, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the State.13 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the admissions policy discriminates on the basis of gender.14 On rehearing the State contended that Congress in enacting section 901(a)(5) of Title IX expressly authorized MUW to continue its single-sex admissions policy.15 The Court of Appeals rejected that argument.16 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.17
Whether a state statute that excludes males from enrolling in a state-supported professional nursing school violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?18
The party seeking to uphold a statute that classifies individuals on the basis of their gender must carry the burden of showing an 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for the classification.19 The burden is met only by showing at least that the classification serves 'important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are 'substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.'20
Yes. The facts establish that MUW's School of Nursing opened in 1971.21 Women earned 94 percent of nursing baccalaureate degrees in Mississippi that year.22 There was no showing that women lacked opportunities in nursing when the policy was adopted or that men are disadvantaged in the field.23 The policy therefore does not compensate for past discrimination against women but instead perpetuates the stereotype that nursing is exclusively a woman's job.24 The means are not substantially related to any compensatory objective because MUW permits men to audit classes without affecting teaching style or female student performance.25 The state offers no evidence that excluding men is necessary to achieve educational goals.26 The state's additional interest in single-sex education is not substantially furthered by excluding men from this particular program while allowing women to attend coeducational institutions elsewhere.27
The Supreme Court granted certiorari after the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment upholding the policy under rational-basis review.28 Hogan, a qualified male applicant denied credit enrollment solely because of his sex, established that the classification discriminates on the basis of gender and therefore triggers intermediate scrutiny.29 The state failed to meet its burden under that standard.30
The single-sex admissions policy of MUW's School of Nursing violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.31
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Burger agreed with Justice Powell that the decision will require all single-sex public institutions of higher education to admit members of the opposite sex.32 This is a result that the Constitution does not require.33 He emphasized that MUW's policy rests on the practical reality that many women prefer to study nursing in an all-female environment.34
The state's decision to maintain a single-sex school of nursing is not based on archaic stereotypes but on that practical reality.35 Burger viewed the majority as improperly substituting its own judgment for that of the state legislature and the Board of Trustees of the University.36 He dissented from the holding that the single-sex admissions policy violates equal protection.37
Joined by Rehnquist, J.
Justice Powell argued that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit a state from offering women the choice of a single-sex institution within a system that provides abundant coeducational alternatives.38 He contended that the heightened scrutiny standard was designed to remedy genuine stereotyping and should not be used to invalidate a policy that expands women's options.39 This is especially true where the only complainant is a man asserting mere inconvenience of travel and no woman has claimed injury.40
Powell would have upheld the policy even under intermediate scrutiny because single-sex education has long been recognized as providing distinctive benefits.41 Mississippi's choice is substantially related to preserving that tradition of diversity in educational opportunities.42
Justice Blackmun warned that the majority's reasoning places any single-sex state educational institution in constitutional jeopardy once an equivalent program exists elsewhere for the excluded sex.43 He noted that Hogan had access to other state nursing programs at Jackson and Hattiesburg.44 The decision destroys values of choice and diversity that some people find worthwhile.45
Blackmun urged restraint in applying rigid rules to sex discrimination claims that would force needless conformity.46 He hoped that the Court would not lose all values that some think are worthwhile and relegate society to needless conformity in educational choices.47
Whether Congress, through Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, authorized states to maintain single-sex admissions policies at public undergraduate institutions that traditionally have admitted only students of one sex?48
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress power to enforce the Amendment's guarantees but grants no power to restrict, abrogate, or dilute those guarantees; neither Congress nor a state can validate a law that denies rights protected by the Amendment.49
No. Even assuming Congress intended section 901(a)(5) of Title IX to exempt MUW from Title IX's prohibition, that exemption cannot authorize a practice that violates the Equal Protection Clause.50 The Court held that section 5 empowers Congress only to adopt measures enforcing the Amendment, not to limit its substantive protections. Therefore the statutory provision supplies no defense to the constitutional violation.
Congress did not authorize states to maintain single-sex admissions policies that violate the Equal Protection Clause.51