Дело Крейга против Борена: борьба за равные права и отмена дискриминационного закона об алкоголе.

Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case was argued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while she was working for the American Civil Liberties Union. Throughout this case, it was revealed that stereotypes and predictions of how men and women will act is unfair. There were claims such as “males drive more, drink more, and commit more alcohol related crimes” Both Curtis Craig and Carolyn Whitener were friends of a man named Mark Walker who was one of the first people to challenge the law. Ironically, Walker died in a car crash in a drunk driving incident. When Curtis turned 21, Whitener became the sole plaintiff. She credits the idea for this to Mark Walker. She claims it was his idea before the drunk driving incident. The Honk N Holler planned the lengthy struggle against discriminatory law.

The statute was challenged as a Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause violation by Curtis Craig, a male who was over 18 but under 21, and Carolyn Whitener, an Oklahoma vendor of alcohol. The plaintiff argument, originally pioneered by Mark Walker, was carried on by Curtis Craig and then taken on by Honk and Holler owner Carolyn Whitener, after Craig turned 21. Curtis Craig at the age of 18 would go to different 7/11’s and ask to buy 3.2% beer only to be told no. She advocated for the rights of third parties, like Curtis Craig, seeking access to their market by stating “vendors may resist efforts to restrict their operations." Reed set the precedent that classification by gender must substantially further important government objectives, which Craig and Whitener used to claim Oklahoma did not meet the requirements to impose their alcohol law based on that precedent.

The nominal defendant was David Boren, who was sued ex officio by virtue of his serving as Governor of Oklahoma at the time of the lawsuit. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, working as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, advised the plaintiff's attorney, submitted an amicus brief, and was present at the counsel table during oral argument before the Supreme Court.

This case was part of Ginsburg's work with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a statute that denied the sale of beer to individuals of the same age based on their gender violated the Equal Protection Clause. Also, the Supreme Court examined for jus tertii (third party rights), in this case, the vendor of the 3.2% beer.

Justice William J. Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court in which he was joined by justices White, Marshall, Powell and Stevens (Justice Blackmun joined all but one part of the opinion, and Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and Stewart wrote concurrences).

Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist dissented. Rehnquist dissented because he felt that the law needed to pass only "rational basis," as previous cases in the area, such as Stanton v. Stanton, had used only the "rational basis" test. Burger was "in general agreement with Mr. Justice Rehnquist's dissent" but penned a separate dissent to emphasize that "a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities." He felt that the indirect economic injury to Whitener and other vendors introduced "a new concept of constitutional standing to which I cannot subscribe."

As a result of Craig v. Boren and Reed v. Reed, Congress later passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act which penalized states 10% of their allotted Federal highway funds if they had a minimum drinking age below 21. This act was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole.