Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 2464 (1981)
CASE: Boy accused of raping girl challenges law making males alone criminally liable for rape.
HOLDING: State staute holding males exclusively criminally liable for statutory rape does not violate that group's right to equal protection under the law because the statute bears a substantial relationship to the important governmental objective of preventing teenage pregnancy,
RATIONALE:
- Court uses intermediate scrutiny in cases challenging gender-based classifications: the classification must bear a "substantial relationship" to "important governmental objectives."
- Preventing teenage pregnancies is an important governmental objective.
- Half of all teenage pregnancies in abortion.
- Illegitimate children are likely candidates to become wards of the state.
- Staute is substantially related to that purpose because:
- Women suffer disproportionately more from the effects of unplanned pregnancy.
- The law punished the participant who suffers few natural consequences of his conduct.
- Gender-neutral statute would make it less likely that a girl would report violations of the statute (rape) if she herself would be subject to criminal prosecution.
DISSENT: (Brennan joined by White and Marshall) - California failed in its burden of proving that there are fewer teenage pregnancies under the gender-based statute that there would be if the law were gender-neutral.
- The law was not enacted as a way of preventing teenage pregnancies but is a holdover from a less enlightened time in which females were to be deemed legally incapable of consenting to the act of sexual intercourse. It is, therefore, premised on outmoded sexual stereotypes.
T O P
|