One key difference between Craig v. Boren and Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan is the use of evidence. In Craig, the state relied on statistical data to argue that women were better suited to handle low-alcohol beer, whereas Hogan challenged a policy rooted in gender stereotypes without statistical justification. However, it's important to recognize that statistical data can be selectively presented or biased depending on the source, which raises concerns about its reliability in justifying discriminatory laws. This becomes especially problematic when due process and equal protection are overridden based on what the government deems important. While stereotypes do exist, using skewed data to support them risks undermining constitutional protections.
You’re right that data can carry bias. That’s why the Court doesn’t just ask whether the government has some evidence, but whether the evidence actually fits the policy’s goal. In other words, does it genuinely explain the difference being regulated, or does it just reinforce old assumptions?
One key difference between Craig v. Boren and Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan is the use of evidence. In Craig, the state relied on statistical data to argue that women were better suited to handle low-alcohol beer, whereas Hogan challenged a policy rooted in gender stereotypes without statistical justification. However, it's important to recognize that statistical data can be selectively presented or biased depending on the source, which raises concerns about its reliability in justifying discriminatory laws. This becomes especially problematic when due process and equal protection are overridden based on what the government deems important. While stereotypes do exist, using skewed data to support them risks undermining constitutional protections.
You’re right that data can carry bias. That’s why the Court doesn’t just ask whether the government has some evidence, but whether the evidence actually fits the policy’s goal. In other words, does it genuinely explain the difference being regulated, or does it just reinforce old assumptions?