U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)
- Is/are the holding(s) broad or narrow? Clear or opaque?
I believe that the holding is broad because of the Court’s statement that the words “We the People,” have expanded and therefore influenced the Court’s “comprehension” of VMI’s case. If this is the case, that the Court is interpreting and modernizing the Framers’ intentions then it opens the door to other cases being argued with a modern twist added to original documents. Furthermore, I believe that the holding is clear in that it states what VMI is in violation of and that the proposed VWIL solution is not enough, but opaque in their assessment as to what must be done to remedy the situation.
- What are the main reasons behind the holding(s)?
The main reason behind the holding is, in my opinion, the lack of empirical evidence provided by VMI as grounds to keep a single sex place of higher education. As stated in two previous cases dealing with similar aspects, “Parties who seek to defend gender based government action must demonstrate an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for that action.” I do not believe that VMI’s arguments, as explained by the Court, meet this requirement and I think it is for this reason that the Court held the way that they did.
- What is the role of precedent?
Precedential cases, in this case, are referred to in order to give examples as to how the rights and roles of women have been increasing as the years increase. The cases are attempting to prove that the laws in place were not meeting the “equal opportunity” portion of the 14th amendment. By extension, the Court wants to use these cases as evidence towards a changing time and further the argument that VMI’s “laws” are, also, not meeting the “equal opportunity” portion of the 14th amendment.
- What evidence is the court relying on to reach its decision?
The Court is, largely, relying on the previous, but similar, rulings made by other schools. The two main schools used as examples are Mississippi University for Women and the University of Virginia. These two schools are used to show that many of the arguments for a single sex school do not carry the weight that VMI had previously expected them to hold.