Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County

Background

A 17½-year-old boy was charged under California law for having sexual intercourse with a 16½-year-old girl. The California statute makes it a crime for a man to have sex with an unmarried female under 18, but not vice versa. The California Supreme Court upheld the law, and the young man appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming unlawful sex-based discrimination.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the gender-only rule violates the Constitution’s promise of equal treatment. It did not apply the highest form of scrutiny for sex distinctions but required a closer look than ordinary economic laws. The majority accepted California’s stated goal of preventing teenage pregnancy and concluded that punishing only males is substantially related to that goal because pregnancy’s harms fall mostly on young women and because making women criminally liable could reduce reporting and enforcement.

Real world impact

The decision allows states to keep or enact gender-specific criminal rules aimed at reducing teenage pregnancy and means young men can be prosecuted even when their female partners are not. Prosecutors and legislatures retain discretion to choose enforcement approaches. The ruling does not prevent different states from adopting gender-neutral laws or from changing this policy in the future. It also sparked strong disagreements among the Justices about proof and fairness.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices would have struck down the law, saying the State failed to prove a gender-neutral law would be less effective and calling the exemption unfair; two other Justices emphasized the law’s role in protecting girls from pregnancy.