SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


                       VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE ET AL.
                                 v. UNITED STATES
                                ____

                      ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
                     THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
                               THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                       No. 92-1213.  Decided May 24, 1993

  The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

  Opinion of JUSTICE SCALIA respecting the denial of the petition for writ of
certiorari.
  Whether it is constitutional for a State to have a men-only military school is
an issue that should receive the attention of this Court before, rather than
after, a national institution as venerable as the Virginia Military Institute is
compelled to transform itself.  This present petition, however, seeks our
intervention before the litigation below has come to final judgment.  The Court
of Appeals vacated the judgment that had been entered in favor of petitioners,
and remanded the case to the District Court for determination of an appropriate
remedy.  It expressly declined to rule on the "specific remedial course that the
Commonwealth should or must follow hereafter," and suggested permissible
remedies other than compelling the Virginia Military Institute to abandon its
current admissions policy.  United States v. Virginia, 976 F. 2d 890, 900 (CA4
                            _____________    ________
1992).
  We generally await final judgment in the lower courts before exercising our
certiorari jurisdiction.  See, e.g., American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville,
                               ____
                                  _  _________________________    _____________
T & K. W. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 384 (1893); Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen &
________________                             ___________________________________
Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 389 U. S. 327, 328 (1967) (per curiam);
_________    _________________________                            ____________
see generally R. Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Supreme Court Practice
S4.18, pp. 224-226 (6th ed. 1986).  I think it prudent to take that course
here.  Our action does not, of course,

2                 VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE v. UNITED STATES
                                             ____

preclude VMI from raising the same issues in a later petition, after final
judgment has been rendered.  See, e.g., Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. &
                                  ____  _______________________    ____________
Co., 240 U. S. 251, 257-259 (1916); Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines,
___                                 _______________    _____________________
Inc., 409 U. S. 363, 365-366, n. 1 (1973); Stern, Gressman, & Shapiro, supra,
____                                                                   _____
S4.18, at 226; 17 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and
Procedure S4036, p. 32 (2d ed. 1988).
  JUSTICE THOMAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.