Dfas

Geraldine Reyes
Political Science 219
Women and the Law
Spring 2010

1st CASE BRIEF

Case name: Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Parties: Plaintiff/ Joe Hogan; Defendant/Mississippi University for Women

Statement of Facts: Joe Hogan was a registered nurse who did not have a baccalaureate degree in his field of study. Hogan applied for admission to a baccalaureate programfor nursing in the Mississippi University for Women. He was denied admission because the university he applied to was an “all female college” (Lindgren, p.67). This meant that the school excludedparticipation from men. Hogan was suing under the statute of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court denied the claim of “single sex admissions policy” (Lindgren,p.67) because they concluded that “single sex education affords unique benefits to students” they also thought that Hogan failed to provide further evidence to back up his claim. The Court of Appeals forthe Fifth Circuit stated that the District Court “improperly used a rational relationship to test to judge the constitutionality of the policy” (Lindgren, p.67).

Issue(s)/Claim(s): Joe Hoganclaimed that the policy in the Mississippi University for Women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the policy excluded “males from enrolling” in a “state-supported”nursing program. Hogan “sought injunction and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory damages” (Lindgren, p.67). After the hearing, the District Court denied his claim by stating that MUW“provides the greatest practical range of educational opportunities for its female student population, and bears a rational relationship to the states’ legitimate interest” (Lindgren, p.67). The Defendant,Mississippi University for Women denied the claims made by Hogan. Their justification stated that “single sex admission policy of MUW’s school of Nursing… compensates for discrimination against women...