| Goesaert v. Cleary | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 19, 1948 Decided December 20, 1948 | |
| Full case name | Valentine Goesaert et al. v. Owen J. Cleary et al. |
| Citations | 335 U.S. 464 (more) 69 S.Ct. 198; 93 L. Ed. 163; 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2715 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 74 F. Supp. 735 (E.D. Mich. 1947), probable jurisdiction noted, 68 S. Ct. 1340 (1948). |
| Holding | |
| A state law prohibiting a woman from being licensed as a bartender unless she was the wife or daughter of the bar owner did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Frankfurter, joined by Vinson, Black, Reed, Jackson, Burton |
| Dissent | Rutledge, joined by Douglas, Murphy |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18990(1). | |
Overruled by | |
| Craig v. Boren (1976) | |
Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law, which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more unless their father or husband owned the establishment.[1] Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in the case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state's power to bar them from working as bartenders. Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the woman bartender, it was argued, could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.
The decision was subsequently overruled by Craig v. Boren (1976).[2]