Statements (92)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:area |
gptkb:Constitution
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
March 20, 1996
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
gptkb:David_L._Hargrove
gptkb:William_H._Rehnquist gptkb:Sandra_Day_O'_Connor gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:David_H._Souter gptkb:Robert_A._Long_Jr. gptkb:Walter_Jones gptkb:William_J._Brennan_Jr. gptkb:John_Paul_Stevens gptkb:Anthony_M._Kennedy gptkb:Catherine_E._Mc_Gowan gptkb:Clarence_Thomas gptkb:Michael_J._O'_Neill gptkb:Paul_B._Stevens gptkb:Stephen_G._Breyer gptkb:John_C._Jeffries_Jr. |
| gptkbp:case_number |
94-2107
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Unconstitutional to exclude women
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil rights case
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:1996
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States 5-4 vote June 26, 1996 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy gptkb:Justice_Scalia gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas Critique of majority's interpretation Emphasis on state rights Views on gender roles Critique of the majority's reasoning Discussion of historical context Discussion of the role of the judiciary Discussion of the implications for women's colleges Concerns about the future of single-gender education Call for deference to state policy Concerns about military training programs Concerns about social engineering Concerns about the erosion of single-sex programs Concerns about the impact on community values Concerns about the impact on educational funding Concerns about the impact on male students Concerns about the impact on social cohesion Concerns about the impact on societal norms Concerns about the precedent set by the case Concerns about the role of the federal government Critique of the majority's approach to equality Critique of the majority's view on stereotypes Discussion of educational standards Discussion of the implications for future cases Discussion of the implications for public policy Discussion of the implications for sports programs Discussion of the role of the state in education Discussion of the role of tradition Concerns about the implications for family structures Reference to previous cases Views on the importance of choice in education Views on the importance of diversity in education Views on the importance of educational diversity Views on the importance of historical precedent Views on the importance of male-only institutions Views on the role of the military Critique of the majority's view on educational benefits Discussion of the implications for gender roles in society Concerns about the implications for single-sex institutions Discussion of the implications for other institutions Discussion of the importance of tradition in education Concerns about the future of single-gender education programs Critique of the majority's interpretation of the law |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Virginia
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Increased gender equality in military education
Increased gender equality in education |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Virginia_Military_Institute
gptkb:United_States |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
518 U. S. 515
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Gender discrimination
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
VMI must admit women
Virginia Military Institute must admit women |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Equal Protection Clause
|
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Justice_Sandra_Day_O'_Connor |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Mississippi_University_for_Women_v._Hogan
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Gender discrimination in education
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Constitution
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|