American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

History of prejudice: the same args used here had been used to exclude women from professional schools. As long as one woman wants to attend, she should be allowed. VMI gives men prestige, adversative training that VMIL w/n for women.

Irrelevant to legit state purpose: fails on this prong. There are gender diffs, but have to differentiate between real diffs and gender stereotypes. As long as some or one woman can live up to this standard she should be allowed. Not Lee Optical so must look at actual purpose.

Scalia is afraid that getting rid of all same sex schools would be the next step. Public v. private sphere of schools (VMI is in public sphere). Usually allowed in private sphere but then limits on fed funding. If VMIL was equal would it have passed test—case d/n address this, specific to facts of the case.

Implied stigma cases- burden on men (Craig, Hogan, Orr)

1. 
   Craig v. Boren, 1976: struck down law that advantaged women by allowing them to purchase 3.2% beer at 18, while men limited to age 21, under intermediate scrutiny, even though disadvantageous to men not women. Impt/substantial objective: c/n be invidious but may be compensatory. Gender classifications must have substantial relation to objective
   
   1. 
      Statistically significant differences drinking/driving arrest rates for men and women not enough, both over and under inclusive. Gender neutral law would serve this purpose just as well. If serious enough problem then need to ban for everyone. Obvious loophole b/c forbidden to sell this alcohol to men but not prevent their drinking it.
      
   2. 
      History of prejudice: Brennan: suspicious of enforced diffs b/w genders, believed they should never be the measure of law b/c filtered thru cultural disadvantages, d/n want to endorse history of ethnic/gender stereotyping. History of putting women on a pedestal may lead to under-enforcement of their drinking & driving and this law perpetuates this
      
   3.