Craig v. Boren

Facts

An Oklahoma statute prohibited the sale of 3.2% beer, which Oklahoma apparently considered nonintoxicating, to males under 21 and to females under 18. Before 1972 the State had set different ages of majority for the sexes. In 1972 it made 18 the age of majority for both males and females in civil matters, but the beer statute was codified at the same time as an exception to that gender-free rule. Craig, a male then between 18 and 21, and Whitener, a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, challenged the differential as invidious discrimination against males 18-20 years of age. Oklahoma defended the law as a traffic-safety measure and offered statistical surveys. The most focused one, on arrests of 18-20-year-olds for alcohol-related driving offenses, showed that .18% of females and 2% of males in that age group were arrested. Other surveys covered traffic casualties, a roadside survey in Oklahoma City, and national arrest figures. The statute barred only the sale of the beer to young males. It did not bar their drinking it, even after it was bought for them by their 18-20-year-old female companions. Craig turned 21 while the appeal was pending.

Issues

1. Can Whitener, a licensed beer vendor who faces sanctions under the statute, rely on the equal protection rights of males 18-20 years of age to challenge Oklahoma's law?
2. Does an Oklahoma law that bars the sale of 3.2% beer to males under 21 but to females only under 18 deny males 18-20 years of age the equal protection of the laws?
3. Does the Twenty-first Amendment save an otherwise invalid gender-based classification in a state liquor law?

Holding

Oklahoma's differential for 3.2% beer invidiously discriminates against males 18-20 years of age. The traffic-safety statistics do not show that the gender line is substantially related to traffic safety. The Twenty-first Amendment does not save the law, and Whitener may raise the claim.