In the decision that follows, United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court confronted the argument that the admissions policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) excluding female applicants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Founded in 1839, VMI’s mission is to produce “citizen-soldiers” prepared for leadership in civilian life and in military service. When the United States government sued the Commonwealth of Virginia challenging the exclusionary admissions policy, the State proposed creating the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership, a parallel program for women chartered with the same mission to produce “citizen-soldiers.”
In her opinion on behalf of the Court, Justice Ginsburg writes that the case asks the Court to decide “whether the Commonwealth can constitutionally deny to women who have the will and capacity, the training and attendant opportunities that VMI uniquely affords.” Holding the admissions policy to be constitutionally problematic, Justice Ginsburg invokes the standard announced by the Court in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718 (1982), to conclude that Virginia had failed to demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for its exclusionary policy. Her opinion likewise holds that Virginia’s proposed new institution for female cadets could not offer the same opportunities or benefits of VMI’s unique and storied program. Finally, Justice Ginsburg observes, “There is no reason to believe that the admission of women capable of all the activities required of VMI cadets would destroy the Institute rather than enhance its capacity to serve the ‘more perfect Union.’ ”
Although he did not sign on to her opinion, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist concurred in the judgment, agreeing with the Court’s holding. This left Justice Antonin Scalia as the lone dissenter. In Justice Scalia’s view, the Court had raised the level of scrutiny applied to gender classifications beyond what the Court’s earlier precedents supported. Further, he believed that VMI had demonstrated that its “all-male composition” was “essential to th[e] institution’s character.” Justice Ginsburg’s responses to the dissent may be found in her opinion for the Court.
The statement Justice Ginsburg read from the bench on the day the Court announced the VMI decision, along with her opinion for the Court, follow.