What must VMI do after U'S' v' Virginia

1
What must VMI do after U.S. v. Virginia?

• Admit women, with no modifications?
• Modify privacy, living arrangement, but nothing
  else?
• Modify physical requirements? The adversative
  method?

2
What to do with Real Differences?

• Michael M. v. Superior Court (1981) upholding CA
  statutory rape law that makes it a crime for men
  (of any age) to have intercourse with a female
  under the age of 18 the Court accepts the
  states asserted justification of reducing teen
  pregnancy, and invokes the real difference of
  pregnancy
• Parham v. Hughes (1979) upholding law treating
  unwed mothers differently from unwed fathers in
  their ability to sue for wrongful death, because
  mothers and fathers are not similarly situated
  with respect to parenthood.
• Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) upholding requirement
  in federal law that only males register for the
  draft men and women are not similarly situated
  with respect to combat eligibility.

3
A Retreat from VMIs Equal Treatment? Nguyen
v. I.N.S. (2001)

• 1409(a)(4) automatic citizenship on children
  born overseas to citizen mothers but children
  born overseas to citizen fathers must show
• That they were legally legitimated or paternity
  was established in court or by paternal oath
  before the childs 18th birthday
• Why doesnt this fail VMI-type scrutiny?
• Could this statute be re-written to be
  gender-neutral, and still fulfill the
  governments purposes?

4
The problem of pregnancy Geduldig v. Aiello
(1974)

• Californias disability insurance scheme protects
  all disabilities except pregnancy. Why doesnt
  the Court treat this as discrimination against
  women, subject to more serious equal protection
  review?
• Why didnt the Court see an intent to
  discriminate against women here, given the
  obvious fact that only women get pregnant?