Virginia Military Institute v. United States

1993-05-24
Share:

Headline: Refuses immediate review of whether a state may run a men-only military school, leaving lower courts to decide remedies and allowing the Virginia Military Institute’s admissions policy to stand for now.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Leaves Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions intact temporarily during lower-court proceedings.
  • Keeps the constitutional question undecided by the Supreme Court for now.
  • Allows parties to seek Supreme Court review again after final judgment.
Topics: single-sex education, military schools, gender discrimination, court review process

Summary

Background

The dispute involves the Virginia Military Institute, a state-run military school that admits only men, and parties who challenged that policy. The district court had entered judgment in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals vacated that judgment and remanded the case to the district court to determine an appropriate remedy. The appellate court expressly declined to order a specific remedial course forcing the school to change its admissions policy and suggested other permissible remedies.

Reasoning

The central question presented was whether it is constitutional for a State to operate a men-only military school. Justice Scalia, writing to respect the denial of the petition, explained the Supreme Court declined to hear the case now because the litigation below has not reached a final judgment. The Court emphasized its usual practice of awaiting final decisions from lower courts, citing prior cases and practice manuals, and therefore did not decide the constitutional issue on the merits.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused immediate review, the Virginia Military Institute will not be compelled by this Court at this stage to change its admissions policy. The lower courts will continue to work out appropriate remedies, and the parties remain free to seek Supreme Court review again after a final judgment. In short, the larger constitutional question remains undecided and active in the lower courts for now.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition; no other opinions are noted in this text.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases