Oklahoma allowed women to buy 3.2% beer at age 18 but prohibited men from buying it until age 21. Curtis Craig, a male between 18 and 21, and a licensed beer vendor, Whitener, challenged the statute under the Equal Protection Clause. The state defended the law with traffic-safety statistics suggesting young men were more likely than young women to be arrested for drunk driving and related offenses. The case also raised whether the vendor had standing to assert the rights of male customers affected by the law.
Does an Oklahoma law that sets different minimum ages for purchasing 3.2% beer based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. Statistical generalizations or broad stereotypes are insufficient when the fit between the sex-based classification and the asserted objective is weak.
Yes. The Court held that Oklahoma's gender-based age distinction for purchasing 3.2% beer denied equal protection because the state failed to show that the classification was substantially related to an important governmental objective. The vendor also had standing to challenge the law on behalf of affected customers.
The Court treated sex-based classifications as requiring an intermediate level of scrutiny, more demanding than rational basis but less than strict scrutiny. Although traffic safety is an important objective, Oklahoma's evidence showed only a weak correlation between being male and engaging in drunk driving or alcohol-related misconduct in the relevant age group. The percentages and arrest statistics did not justify imposing a blanket rule on all young men while permitting all young women to purchase the product. The Court also allowed third-party standing because the vendor suffered direct economic injury and was closely connected to the customers whose rights were burdened.
Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing that the Court should have applied ordinary rational-basis review and that the Oklahoma legislature could reasonably rely on the statistical disparity between young men and women in alcohol-related driving problems.
Craig v. Boren is the leading case establishing intermediate scrutiny for sex-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause. It marked a major step beyond earlier sex-discrimination cases by articulating the now-standard requirement that gender classifications be substantially related to important governmental objectives. It builds on Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), and Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), and it shaped later doctrine in cases such as Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982), United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), and Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001).
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) |
Abstain |
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) |
Abstain |
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) |
Abstain |
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) |
Abstain |
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) |
Abstain |
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →