Issue.  Does an Oklahoma law that prohibits the sale of 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21, but to females under the age of 18 violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Background.  Under Oklahoma law, a male under the age of 21 cannot purchase 3.2% beer (by alcohol content) while a female under the age of 18 cannot purchase 3.2% beer.  Oklahoma claimed that the law was to promote safety on the highways since young males are arrested more for drunk driving than their female counterparts (2% vs. 0.13% respectively).  Individuals challenged the law as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the Supreme Court agreed.

Court's Analysis.  This is the first case where the Court outlined some sort of intermediate scrutiny for discrimination based on gender with respect to the Equal Protection Clause.  For a gender-based differential to withstand constitutional scrutiny, the distinction must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achieve those objectives.  Such is not the case here.

As noted, Oklahoma claimed it made such a distinction because males 18-20 are more likely to be arrested for driving while intoxication than females 18-20.  The Court found that the statistical evidence was weak - young men could be arrested while young females could just be sent home.  Further, the evidence does not link the incidents of arrest to the purchase of beer.  The State's justification is even more unlikely since the law only prohibits the purchase of 3.2% beer, and not its consumption.  Thus, the relationship between gender and traffic safety is far too tenuous to allow for a gender based differential.