Opinion [ O'Connor ] | Concurrence [ Scalia ] | Syllabus | Concurrence [ Ginsburg ] |
---|---|---|---|
HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No.
[
Justice
The Court's opinion, which I join, seems to me in harmony with the view expressed in this concurring statement.
* Indeed, even under the Court's equal protection jurisprudence, which requires "an exceedingly persuasive justification" for a gender based classification, Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 461 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted), it remains an open question whether "classifications based upon gender are inherently suspect." See Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724, and n. 9 (1982).