InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Goesaert et al. v. Cleary et al., Members of the Liquor Control Commission of Michigan

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.

335 U.S. 464 · No. 49 · 1948 term · Vinson Court

Decided Dec 20, 1948 · argued Nov 19, 1948

Civil rights · Sex discrimination in employment

Majority opinion: Felix Frankfurter

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. Goesaert et al. lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Goesaert et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

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. 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), which held that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1948 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianRutledgeDouglasBlackMurphyFrankfurterReedVinsonBurtonR. Jackson

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Goesaert et al.Female employee or job applicant
Respondent
Cleary et al., Members of the Liquor Control Commission of MichiganState commission, board, committee, or authority (Michigan)
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Dec 20, 1948DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Goesaert et al. lost.
  2. Nov 19, 1948ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court, with a dissent.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

41 other argued cases since 1946 on sex discrimination in employment, newest first.

  1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri144 S. Ct. 967Apr 17, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 967Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  2. Bostock v. Clayton County, GeorgiaLandmark · Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity140 S. Ct. 1731Jun 15, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1731Civil rights6–36–3 band

  3. Young v. UPS575 U.S. 206Mar 25, 2015 · 575 U.S. 206Civil rights6–36–3 band

  4. AT&T Corporation v. Noreen Hulteen et al.556 U.S. 701May 18, 2009 · 556 U.S. 701Civil rights7–27–2 band

  5. Vicky S. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee555 U.S. 271Jan 26, 2009 · 555 U.S. 271Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  6. Lilly M. Ledbetter v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc.550 U.S. 618May 29, 2007 · 550 U.S. 618Civil rights5–45–4 band

  7. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila WhiteLandmark · Discrimination based on sex548 U.S. 53Jun 22, 2006 · 548 U.S. 53Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  8. Jenifer Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, dba the Moonlight Cafe546 U.S. 500Feb 22, 2006 · 546 U.S. 500Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  9. Pennsylvania State Police v. Nancy Drew Suders542 U.S. 129Jun 14, 2004 · 542 U.S. 129Civil rights8–18–1 band

  10. Desert Palace, Inc., dba Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino v. Catharina F. Costa539 U.S. 90Jun 9, 2003 · 539 U.S. 90Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  11. Sharon B. Pollard v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company532 U.S. 843Jun 4, 2001 · 532 U.S. 843Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  12. Beth Ann Faragher v. City of Boca Raton524 U.S. 775Jun 26, 1998 · 524 U.S. 775Civil rights7–27–2 band

  13. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Kimberly B. EllerthLandmark524 U.S. 742Jun 26, 1998 · 524 U.S. 742Civil rights7–27–2 band

  14. Joseph Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Incorporated, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex523 U.S. 75Mar 4, 1998 · 523 U.S. 75Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  15. Christine McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company513 U.S. 352Jan 23, 1995 · 513 U.S. 352Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  16. Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.510 U.S. 17Nov 9, 1993 · 510 U.S. 17Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  17. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, et al. v. Johnson Controls, Inc.499 U.S. 187Mar 20, 1991 · 499 U.S. 187Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  18. Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsLandmark · Discrimination based on sex490 U.S. 228May 1, 1989 · 490 U.S. 228Civil rights6–36–3 band

  19. Florida et al. v. Long et al.487 U.S. 223Jun 22, 1988 · 487 U.S. 223Civil rights5–45–4 band
  20. Wimberly v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri479 U.S. 511Jan 21, 1987 · 479 U.S. 511Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  21. California Federal Savings & Loan Assn. et al. v. Guerra, Director, Department of Fair Employment and Housing, et al.479 U.S. 272Jan 13, 1987 · 479 U.S. 272Civil rights6–36–3 band
  22. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson et al.477 U.S. 57Jun 19, 1986 · 477 U.S. 57Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  23. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina470 U.S. 564Mar 19, 1985 · 470 U.S. 564Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  24. Hishon v. King & Spalding467 U.S. 69May 22, 1984 · 467 U.S. 69Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  25. Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans et al. v. Norris463 U.S. 1073Jul 6, 1983 · 463 U.S. 1073Civil rights5–45–4 band
  26. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission462 U.S. 669Jun 20, 1983 · 462 U.S. 669Civil rights7–27–2 band
  27. Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission458 U.S. 219Jun 28, 1982 · 458 U.S. 219Civil rights6–36–3 band
  28. North Haven Board of Education et al. v. Bell, Secretary of Education, et al.456 U.S. 512May 17, 1982 · 456 U.S. 512Civil rights6–36–3 band
  29. Zipes et al. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.455 U.S. 385Feb 24, 1982 · 455 U.S. 385Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  30. County of Washington, Oregon, et al. v. Gunther et al.452 U.S. 161Jun 8, 1981 · 452 U.S. 161Civil rights5–45–4 band
  31. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association et al. v. Novotny442 U.S. 366Jun 11, 1979 · 442 U.S. 366Civil rights6–36–3 band
  32. Davis v. Passman442 U.S. 228Jun 5, 1979 · 442 U.S. 228Civil rights5–45–4 band
  33. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power et al. v. Manhart et al.435 U.S. 702Apr 25, 1978 · 435 U.S. 702Civil rights6–27–2 band

  34. Richmond Unified School District v. Berg434 U.S. 158Dec 6, 1977 · 434 U.S. 158Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  35. Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty434 U.S. 136Dec 6, 1977 · 434 U.S. 136Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  36. Dothard, Director, Department of Public Safety of Alabama, et al. v. Rawlinson et al.433 U.S. 321Jun 27, 1977 · 433 U.S. 321Civil rights7–27–2 band
  37. General Electric Co. v. Gilbert et al.429 U.S. 125Dec 7, 1976 · 429 U.S. 125Civil rights6–36–3 band
  38. Geduldig, Director, Department of Human Resources Development v. Aiello et al.417 U.S. 484Jun 17, 1974 · 417 U.S. 484Civil rights6–36–3 band

  39. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor417 U.S. 188Jun 3, 1974 · 417 U.S. 188Civil rights5–36–3 band

  40. Cleveland Board of Education et al. v. Lafleur et al.414 U.S. 632Jan 21, 1974 · 414 U.S. 632Civil rights7–27–2 band

  41. Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex400 U.S. 542Jan 25, 1971 · 400 U.S. 542Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.