Goesaert v. Cleary

Decision Date20 December 1948
Docket NumberNo. 49,49
PartiesGOESAERT et al. v. CLEARY et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Anne R. Davidow, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Mr. Edmund E. Shepherd, of Lansing, Mich., for appellees.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

As part of the Michigan system for controlling the sale of liquor, bartenders are required to be licensed in all cities having a population of 50,000, or more, but no female may be so licensed unless she be 'the wife or daughter of the male owner' of a licensed liquor establishment. Section 19a of Act 133 of the Public Acts of Michigan 1945, Mich.Stat.Ann. § 18,990(1), Cum.Supp.1947. The case is here on direct appeal from an order of the District Court of three judges, convened under § 266 of the old Judicial Code, now 28 U.S.C. § 2284, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2284, denying an injunction to restrain the enforcement of the Michigan law. The claim, denied below, one judge dissenting, 74 F.Supp. 735, and renewed here, is that Michigan cannot forbid females generally from being barmaids and at the same time make an exception in favor of the wives and daughters of the owners of liquor establishments. Beguiling as the subject is, it need not detain us long. To ask whether or not the Equal Protection of the Laws Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred Michigan from making the classification the State has made between wives and daughters of owners of liquor places and wives and daughters of non-owners, is one of those rare instances where to state the question is in effect to answer it.

We are, to be sure, dealing with a historic calling. We meet the alewife, sprightly and ribald, in Shakespeare, but centuries before him she played a role in the social life of England. See, e.g., Jusserand, English Wayfaring Life, 133, 134, 136-37 (1889). The Fourteenth Amendment did not tear history up by the roots, and the regulation of the liquor traffic is one of the oldest and most untrammeled of legislative powers. Michigan could, beyond question, forbid all women from working behind a bar. This is so despite the vast changes in the social and legal position of women. The fact that women may now have achieved the virtues that men have long claimed as their prerogatives and now indulge in vices that men have long practiced, does not preclude the States from drawing a sharp line between the sexes, certainly, in such matters as the regulation of the liquor traffic. See the Twenty-First Amendment and Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131, 64 S.Ct. 464, 88 L.Ed. 605. The Constitution does not require legislatures to reflect sociological insight, or shifting social standards, any more than it requires them to keep abreast of the latest scientific standards.

While Michigan may deny to all women opportunities for bartending, Michigan cannot play favorities among women without rhyme or reasons. The Constitution in enjoining the equal protection of the laws upon States precludes irrational discrimination as between persons or groups of persons in the incidence of a law. But the Constitution does not requ re situations 'which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.' Tigner v. State of Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147, 60 S.Ct. 879, 882, 84 L.Ed. 1124, 130 A.L.R. 1321. Since bartending by women may, in the allowable legislative judgment, give rise to moral and social problems against which it may devise preventive measures, the legislature need not go to the full length of prohibition if it believes that as to a defined group of females other factors are operating which either eliminate or reduce the moral and social problems otherwise calling for prohibition. Michigan evidently believes that the oversight assured through ownership of a bar by a barmaid's husband or father minimizes hazards that may confront a barmaid without such protecting oversight. This Court is certainly not in a position to gainsay such belief by the Michigan legislature. If it is entertainable, as we think it is, Michigan has not violated its duty to afford equal protection of its laws. We cannot cross-examine either actually or argumentatively the mind of Michigan legis- lators nor question their motives. Since the line they have drawn is not without a basis in reason, we cannot give ear to the suggestion that the real impulse behind this legislation was an unchivalrous desire of male bartenders to try to monopolize the calling.

It would be an idle parade of familiar learning to review the multitudinous cases in which the constitutional assurance of the equal protection of the laws has been applied. The generalties on thi subject are not in dispute; their application turns peculiarly on the particular circumstances of a case. Thus, it would be a sterile inquiry to consider whether this case is nearer to the nepotic pilotage law of Louisiana, sustained in Kotch v. River Port Pilot Commissioners, 330 U.S 552, 67 S.Ct. 910, 91...

To continue reading

Request your trial
223 cases
  • Wilczynski v. Harder, Civ. No. 13382.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • February 16, 1971
    ...... Cf. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 617, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed. 2d 1435 (1960); Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464, 466-467, 69 S.Ct. 198, 93 L.Ed. 163 (1948). From that perspective, it is apparent that a rational basis does exist for the ......
  • Vitolo v. Guzman
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee
    • May 19, 2021
    ...the talent and capacities of our Nation's people. But such classifications may not be used, as they once were, see [ Goesaert v. Cleary , 335 U.S. 464, 467, 69 S.Ct. 198, 93 L.Ed. 163 (1948) ], to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women. United States v. Vi......
  • Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • May 27, 1971
    .......         Finally, the Attorney General argues that this case is governed by Goesaert v. Cleary, Supra, 335 U.S. 464, 69 S.Ct. 198, 93 L.Ed. 163, which held constitutional a Michigan statute forbidding any female to act as bartender ......
  • Boreta Enterprises, Inc. v. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1969
    ...... (See Goesaert v. Cleary, (1948) 335 U.S. 464, 465-466, 69 S.Ct. 198, 93 L.Ed. 163; City of New Orleans v. Kiefer (1964) 246 La. 305, 164 So.2d 336, 339; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 121 No. 4, February 2023
    • February 1, 2023
    ...constitutional jurisprudence on women contains many precedents that appear to be prime candidates for anticanonical status"). (282.) 335 U.S. 464 (1948). In Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 210 n.23 (1976), the Court explicitly stated that Goesaert "is (283.) 368 U.S. 57 (1961). In Taylor v. L......
  • Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Confronting Structural Racism in the Workplace
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 74-4, July 2014
    • July 1, 2014
    ...commanded unanimity among social scientists, has been validated countless times by empirical studies as we have 197. Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464, 466 (1948) (dictum). 198. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 377 (2003) (Thomas, J., concurring) (denouncing affirmative action in law scho......
  • Sex Equality's Irreconcilable Differences.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 132 No. 4, February 2023
    • February 1, 2023
    ...a minimum-wage law for women on the ground that the law furthered the State's legitimate interest in women's health); Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464, 466 (1948) (upholding a law prohibiting women from working as bartenders on the ground that the law furthered the State's interest in publi......
  • Restricting the freedom of contract: a fundamental prohibition.
    • United States
    • Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal No. 16, January 2013
    • January 1, 2013
    ...518 U.S. 515, 564 (1996) (invalidating the Virginia Military Institute's single-sex matriculation policy). (167.) See Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948) (upholding a Michigan law forbidding all women except those who are wives and daughters of tavern owners from working as barmaids on ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT