513284150 pro choice advocates rally outside of the supreme court.jpg.crop.promo xlarge2

Women Thought History Supreme Court Cases

  • Muller v. Oregon (208 U.S. 412, 1908)

    Muller v. Oregon (208 U.S. 412, 1908)
    Regulation restricted the number of hours a women can work at a laundry house. The court found that this was reasonable and rational to do so, by regulation there hours. They allowed this to pass because this was for women.
  • Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (261 U.S. 525,1923)

    Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (261 U.S. 525,1923)
    The Supreme Court held that the minimum wage for women was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that regulating hours from (Muller v. Oregon) was different then regulation the wage for women. This ruling allowed women to have the same rights that men do with work wages.
  • Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 1965)

    Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 1965)
    In Connecticut it was illegal to use drugs for a contraceptive in Connecticut. Connecticut that also helped with this would get punished. Though they presented the 14th amendment that guarantees a “right to privacy” encompassing the right of a person to make the decision about personal matters such as child barring. The court upheld the decision and Griswold loss, but said that married couples were allowed the right to marital privacy.
  • Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (400 U.S 542 1971)

    Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (400 U.S 542 1971)
    This was the first sex discrimination case ruled under Title VII. Title VII prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The court ruled that they could not refuse to hire a women with children if they also hire men with children.
  • Reed v. Reed (404 U.S 71, 1971)

    Reed v. Reed (404 U.S 71, 1971)
    The Supreme Court held that an Idaho law's unequal treatment of men and women based on sex was a violation of the 14th amendment. The law at the time dealt with the administration of an estate after ones death, the estate was automatically gave preference to males over females if they were competing relatives. The Supreme Court agreed that it was a violation of the 14th amendment.
  • Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973)

    Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973)
    Freedom of speech with the sex discrimination issue with making it illegal to indicate a gender requirement in job posting. This case made it illegal to post sex specific jobs for male and female. This all happened because Pittsburgh Press advertised help wanted under the headings of “help wanted-male” and help wanted-female”.
  • Roe v. Wade (113 U.S. 410,1973)

    Roe v. Wade (113 U.S. 410,1973)
    It was only legal to obtain an abortion if the child was conceived of rape, incest or if the mother’s health was affected in Texas. Jane Roe used the ninth amendment that stated it guarantees the right to privacy of American citizens. The court stated that under the 14th amendment due the clause which provided privacy to Americans and their personal decision. Though there was laws that interfered with this. Impact on abortion, Equal rights amendment didn’t pass through congress.
  • International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (499 U.S. 187, 1991)

    International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (499 U.S. 187, 1991)
    Johnson Controls, made a policy banding all women who were fertile from working because of exposure to led, due to the potential harm of inflicting the fetuses of lead poisoning. Though the companies never had a policy for fertile male. Knowing that lead poisoning could have effects on the male’s reproductive system. The court ruled that they couldn’t discriminate based on gender.
  • United States v. Virginia (518 U.S 515, 1996)

    United States v. Virginia (518 U.S 515, 1996)
    United States v. Virginia looked at the Virginia Military Institute’s (VMI) male- only admissions policy. This was the only public male-only insinuate. VMI offered a female a similar program at ta separate location. The Supreme Court ruled that VMI was in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
  • Young v. United parcel Service, inc. (135 S. Ct. 1338, 575 U.S.__.)

    Young v. United parcel Service, inc. (135 S. Ct. 1338, 575 U.S.__.)
    Pregnancy Discrimination Act, required employers to give women were pregnant the same accommodations that non-pregnant employees that were not fully able to work. The Supreme Court ruled that an employer may not cite the cost of providing accommodations for denying the workers.