Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)

Author: Brennan (majority) Outcome: Plaintiffs win ($d = 1$: gender-based beer sale law violates EP) Concurrences: Powell, Stevens, Blackmun, Stewart Dissents: Burger, Rehnquist

1. Holding ($H_t$)

"Oklahoma's gender-based differential constitutes an invidious discrimination against males 18-20 years of age in violation of the Equal Protection Clause." (p. 199)

"We hold, therefore, that under Reed, Oklahoma's 3.2% beer statute invidiously discriminates against males 18-20 years of age." (p. 204)

As constraint on admissible $(w, c)$: The holding rules out any decision rule that permits gender-based distinctions in the sale of alcohol to young adults unless the classification is substantially related to an important governmental objective. Future courts must apply heightened scrutiny to gender-based classifications, requiring a substantial relationship to an important governmental objective.

What the holding does NOT constrain:

Whether gender-based classifications in other contexts are permissible
The specific level of scrutiny for gender classifications (not strict scrutiny)
Whether other age-based or gender-based distinctions in alcohol regulation are permissible
The applicability of the Twenty-first Amendment to other equal protection claims

2. Fact vector $z_t$

2a. Raw salient facts

Gender-based age differential: Oklahoma law prohibits sale of 3.2% beer to males under 21 and females under 18 (p. 190). Favors: plaintiff.
Statistical evidence of male arrests: "18-20-year-old male arrests for 'driving under the influence' and 'drunkenness' substantially exceeded female arrests for that same age period" (p. 200). Favors: government.
Traffic safety objective: The purported objective of the statute is "the enhancement of traffic safety" (p. 200). Favors: government.
Weak statistical correlation: Only .18% of females and 2% of males in the age group were arrested for driving under the influence (p. 200-201). Favors: plaintiff.
Nonintoxicating nature of 3.2% beer: Oklahoma considers 3.2% beer "nonintoxicating" (p. 202). Favors: plaintiff.

2b. Dimension mapping

Dimension	Value	Raw fact(s) mapped	Textual basis
D1 Facial classification	High	Gender-based age differential	Oklahoma law prohibits sale based on gender (p. 190)
D2 Protected trait	Sex	Gender-based age differential	Throughout
D3 Intent evidence	Low	Traffic safety objective	The objective is inferred, not explicitly stated (p. 200)
D4 Interest strength	Moderate	Traffic safety objective	Recognized as important but not compelling (p. 200)
D5 Means-ends fit	Poor	Weak statistical correlation	Only .18% of females and 2% of males arrested (p. 200-201)
D6 Stigma / caste	Low	Nonintoxicating nature of 3.2% beer	The law's impact is minimal due to the nature of the beverage (p. 202)
D7 Institutional setting	Alcohol regulation	Nonintoxicating nature of 3.2% beer	Oklahoma considers the beverage nonintoxicating (p. 202)
D8 Precedent density	Moderate	Reliance on Reed v. Reed	The case builds on Reed's framework (p. 200)

Unmapped facts:

Vendor's standing does not map to any existing dimension. It is a procedural fact about who can challenge the law, not a substantive equal protection issue.

Notable: The Court emphasizes the need for a substantial relationship between the gender classification and the objective, highlighting the insufficiency of the statistical evidence provided by Oklahoma.

3. Treatment of prior holdings ($\mathcal{F}_t$ update)

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Status: Relied on. The Court uses Reed's requirement that gender classifications must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to those objectives (p. 200).
Characterization: Reed is seen as controlling precedent for evaluating gender-based classifications.
Model interpretation: Reinforces the constraint that gender classifications require heightened scrutiny, narrowing $\mathcal{F}_t$ to exclude rules based on administrative convenience or overbroad generalizations.

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

Status: Cited but not fully adopted. The Court does not apply strict scrutiny but acknowledges Frontiero's influence on gender classification analysis (p. 200).
Characterization: Frontiero's approach to gender as a suspect class is noted but not followed.
Model interpretation: Suggests a middle-tier scrutiny for gender classifications, affecting $\mathcal{F}_t$ by requiring substantial justification for gender distinctions.

4. Overruling (constraint removal at cost $C$)

No overruling in this case. The Court does not explicitly overrule any prior decisions but clarifies the standard for gender-based classifications, moving away from the more lenient rational basis review.

5. Breadth

Narrow reading (what the Court explicitly holds):

Gender-based age restrictions on the sale of 3.2% beer are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Applies specifically to the sale of alcohol and the particular age and gender distinctions in Oklahoma law.

Broad reading (what the reasoning supports):

Gender classifications in state laws require heightened scrutiny and must be substantially related to important governmental objectives.
Potentially affects other gender-based distinctions in state regulations beyond alcohol sales.

Breadth ambiguity: The opinion leaves open the precise level of scrutiny for gender classifications, suggesting a middle-tier approach but not fully committing to strict scrutiny or rational basis.

6. Concurrences / dissents (alternative admissible theories)

Powell, J., concurring

Alternative constraint structure: Agrees with the majority but emphasizes a more cautious application of equal protection standards, suggesting a middle-tier scrutiny.
Key disagreement: Concerned with the broad implications of the majority's reasoning on equal protection analysis.

Stevens, J., concurring

Alternative constraint structure: Advocates for a single standard of equal protection analysis, rejecting the tiered approach.
Key disagreement: Disagrees with the notion of varying standards of review for different classifications.

Blackmun, J., concurring in part

Alternative constraint structure: Agrees with the majority except for Part II-D, concerning the Twenty-first Amendment.
Key disagreement: Disagrees with the majority's treatment of the Twenty-first Amendment's impact on equal protection analysis.

Stewart, J., concurring in judgment

Alternative constraint structure: Agrees with the outcome but not the reasoning, emphasizing the importance of the vendor's standing.
Key disagreement: Focuses on procedural aspects rather than substantive equal protection analysis.

Burger, C.J., dissenting

Alternative constraint structure: Argues for a rational basis review, emphasizing the state's broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment.
Key disagreement: Disagrees with the heightened scrutiny applied to gender classifications.

Rehnquist, J., dissenting

Alternative constraint structure: Advocates for a rational basis review, criticizing the majority's introduction of a new standard.
Key disagreement: Disagrees with the application of heightened scrutiny to gender classifications, emphasizing legislative discretion.

7. Reasoning revealing implicit weights on dimensions

Importance of traffic safety (D4 weight is moderate):

"Clearly, the protection of public health and safety represents an important function of state and local governments." (p. 200)

The Court acknowledges the importance of the state's objective but finds the means-ends fit insufficient.

Weakness of statistical evidence (D5 weight is poor):

"The most focused and relevant of the statistical surveys... hardly can form the basis for employment of a gender line as a classifying device." (p. 200-201)

The Court emphasizes the poor fit between the statistical evidence and the gender classification, requiring a stronger connection.

Nonintoxicating nature of 3.2% beer (D7 weight is low):

"Oklahoma apparently considers the 3.2% beverage to be 'nonintoxicating.'" (p. 202)

The Court highlights the minimal impact of the beverage, undermining the state's justification for the gender-based restriction.