The U.S. Government brought a suit against the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) claiming that their male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional due to a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The district court ruled in favor of the Virginia Military Institute, but the Fourth Circuit court reversed this ruling. In response Virginia proposed the creation of the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL).

The district court and Forth Circuit court both ruled in favor of Virginia's proposed plan, with the Forth circuit stating the two institutes would offer, "substantively comparable" educational benefits. This led to the U.S. Government appealing to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiff opened up his argument with a look into the history of this school. When it was formed in 1839, it trained young men to join the militia. Back then women were forbidden from participation in the army or militia. He stated as the goals of the institute have changed, along with the rules forbidden women's participation in the armed forces, this male-only policy was unnecessary. He also stated that forming a separate school for woman offers them a "separate, different, and unequal" alternative. He then went on to dispute a previous argument that allowing women into the school would upset the school's current "adversative method" (a method of learning which is highly based in aggressive confrontation of thoughts, meant to lead to an educated reform of opinion) as not all woman could handle it. He stated that "The question in this case is whether, because most women can't do it, you are constitutionally... the State is constitutionally entitled to exclude all women-- even those who can." In response to a comment that perhaps the true problem with this is that the men won't feel as comfortable with confronting a woman he stated, "Just as in the area of race, an institution would not be able to remain uniracial by saying, if you let black people into VMI, white students would not feel comfortable in applying the adversative method to them, or the other way around, if you let white students into an all black institution that has an adversative method, black people will not feel comfortable in applying the adversative method to them." He then went on to explain why the U.S. Felt strict scrutiny should be involved in this case, saying, "our submission here is that the kind of discrimination that occurs in this case, which is offering a distinctly different opportunity to men and women based on gender alone, should be subject to strict scrutiny." He closed his argument by stating that, "it is inappropriate to say to a particular woman who says I want [VMI] training, 'you can't have it solely because you're a woman.'"

The defendant opened by stating that this argument was truly about wether the state could support same-sex education. He said that the existence of a program for one sex should not immediately necessitate one for the other. He gave an example that if test scores were showing that on average men were receiving 50% of the scores women were, then it would be necessary to create a remedial math class for men, but it would be ridiculous to waste the funding on creating one for girls. When asked to show how this worked in favor of the state, the defendant claimed, "as this Court has said, the most important function that a State can perform is educating its young citizens. Now, as a matter of educating young citizens and performing that important governmental function, single-sex education should be an important part of that." He also stated the adversative method, a necessary part of VMI's educational experience focused on, "physical rigor, mental stress, absolute equality of treatment, absence of privacy, minute regulation of behavior, and indoctrination in desirable values" and therefore wouldn't be as successful for women.

The Supreme Court ruled seven to one in favor of the United States with one judge abstaining, stating that there wasn't justification for the male-only admissions policy, and that the uni-gender policy did not provide the sufficient educational diversity they had claimed it provided. The said that the woman' school did not provide the same opportunity and was therefore unconstitutional.

Is it possible to have separate but equal education?

Go to the right side of the room for yes, and the left side of the room for no.

Does having two separate teams (like having a girls basketball team and a boys basketball team) for separate genders satisfy the need of having equal opportunity for genders.

Go to the right side of the room for yes and the left side of the room for no.

Do you agree with the court's desicion?

Go to the right side of the room for yes, and the left side of the room for no.