West Virginia v. B. P. J. · ¶164
The key question here is whether that sex separation is constitutionally justified. Sex classifications like this one cannot be deployed unless they survive “heightened scrutiny.” J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U. S. 127, 136 (1994) (explaining that this level of scrutiny is “warrant[ed]” due to “‘our [Nation’s] long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination’”). To survive this inquiry, the State must provide an “‘exceedingly persuasive justification’” for letting the sex classification stand. Virginia, 518 U. S., at 546. This means that the State must show “‘at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.’” Id., at 535 (alteration in original; some internal quotation marks omitted). At its core, this inquiry works to distinguish…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.