Goesaert v. Cleary

Background

Michigan required bartender licenses in cities of 50,000 or more but barred most women from being licensed unless they were the wife or daughter of a male owner of the establishment. Women who would have been barmaids challenged the law in federal court, asking for an injunction against enforcement; the three-judge District Court denied that request and the case went to the Supreme Court on direct appeal.

Reasoning

The Court framed the issue as whether the state’s classification violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection. The majority said states may, in the exercise of long-established authority over liquor, forbid women from bartending, and that the Michigan distinction — allowing wives or daughters of male owners to be licensed — had a reasonable basis. The Court accepted the legislature’s judgment that oversight by an owner, husband, or father could reduce social or moral hazards and declined to second-guess that belief. As a result, the law was upheld and the District Court’s denial of an injunction was affirmed.

Real world impact

Women seeking bartender licenses in affected Michigan cities remain barred unless they fit the narrow wife-or-daughter exception; the State may continue enforcing the licensing rule. The decision shows courts will defer to state judgments about sex-based classifications when a legislative rationale exists, leaving the law in force unless altered by the legislature or later cases.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the statute arbitrarily discriminates against women owners and their daughters, pointing out a male owner may hire his wife or daughter while a female owner cannot do the same, and called the law an equal-protection violation.