Reed v. Reed
Oxford Companion to the US Supreme Court:
Top
Reed v. Reed
404 U.S. 71 (1971), argued 19 Oct. 1971, decided 22 Nov. 1971 by vote of 7 to 0; Burger for the Court, two seats (to be occupied by Rehnquist and Powell) were vacant. This was the first decision in a century of Fourteenth Amendment litigation to rule that statutory gender discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause. Earlier cases had established that the clause did not forbid group‐based discrimination as long as the legislature might have some reason for believing the statutory distinction promoted some aspect of the public good. Under this “rational basis test” the Supreme Court had upheld flat bans on the practice of law by women (Bradwell v. Illinois, 1873), prohibitions on women's tending bar (Goesaert v. Cleary, 1948), and blanket exclusions of women from jury service (Hoyt v. Florida, 1961). In Reed the Court ignored this unbroken line of precedents and explained in an extraordinarily short opinion that this case of gender discrimination presented “the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause” (p. 76).
The law in question had distinguished categories of preference for selecting administrators of the estates of people deceased intestate. Part of the law preferred spouses to offspring, offspring to parents, parents to siblings, and so on; another preferred males to females within each category. The Reeds were the divorced parents of a deceased son. Sally, challenging the statutory gender preference, sued Cecil for the right to administer an estate valued at less than one thousand dollars. After striking down this law in Reed, the Court often used the Reed precedent during the following decade to strike down many other statutes that discriminated on the basis of gender.
.
See also Equal Protection
— Leslie Friedman Goldstein
Related Videos:
Top
Reed v. Reed
Oxford Guide to the US Government:
Top
Reed v. Reed
• 404 U.S. 71 (1971)
• Vote: 7–0
• For the Court: Burger
Sally and Cecil Reed were the divorced parents of a deceased son, Richard Reed. Both parents petitioned an Idaho court for appointment as the administrator of their son's estate. The court denied Sally Reed's petition in favor of Cecil Reed. This decision was based on an Idaho statute that preferred males to females in choosing administrators of estates.
Sally Reed sued Cecil for the right to administer Richard's estate, which was valued at less than $1,000. She claimed that the Idaho law giving preference to a male over a female violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of “equal protection of the laws.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued Sally Reed's case before the Supreme Court.
The Issue
The 14th Amendment says, “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” However, in past cases the Court had not used the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment to overturn laws that discriminated against individuals on the basis of gender. The Court had used what it called a rational basis test to uphold sex-based laws. According to this test, such laws were constitutional unless one could prove they were not reasonably connected to a compelling public interest. Did the Idaho law in this case violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Was there any compelling public reason for sustaining this law?
Opinion of the Court
The Court decided this case in favor of Sally Reed, ruling that the Idaho statute did not meet the rational basis test. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote, “To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex … merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Significance
This case was the first to rule that laws mandating gender discrimination are violations of the 14th Amendment. The Court has used the precedent established in the Reed case to strike down many laws that unfairly discriminated against women. For instance, in Kahn v. Shevin (1974) it ruled that a Florida law that gave a property tax exemption to widowers (males), but not to widows (females) was unconstitutional.
See also Equality under the Constitution
Gale Encyclopedia of US History:
Top
Reed v. Reed
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), a case deriving from a provision of Idaho probate law preferring men as administrators of the estate of a deceased child, was the first in a series of 1970s cases associated with the future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that successfully challenged laws discriminating on the basis of sex. The case arose when Sally Reed sought to serve as administrator of her deceased teenage son's meager estate. Challenged by her divorced husband Cecil Reed, the boy's father, the case made its way through the Idaho courts to the Supreme Court. Writing the brief, Ginsburg argued that legislative classification by sex served no compelling state interest in this instance. Furthermore, it violated the right of Sally Reed to the even-handed application of governmental action guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court agreed, although the justices differed as to whether the decision encouraged stricter scrutiny of legislation that discriminated on the basis of sex. Subsequent decisions, however, would confirm that Reed marked the beginning of a major effort, using equal protection analysis, to make the law gender neutral.
Bibliography
Rhode, Deborah L. Justice and Gender: Sex Discrimination and the Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Top
Reed v. Reed
| Reed v. Reed | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued October 19, 1971 Decided November 22, 1971 |
||||||
| Full case name | Sally M. Reed, Appellant, v. Cecil R. Reed, Administrator, etc. | |||||
| Citations | 404 U.S. 71 (more) | |||||
| Subsequent history | 93 Idaho 511, 465 P.2d 635, reversed and remanded | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Burger, joined by unanimous court | |||||
| Justices Black and Harlan retired from the Court on September 17th and 23rd, respectively, and took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | ||||||
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), was an Equal Protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. After the death of their adopted son Richard Lynn Reed,[1] Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate; the Reeds were separated. The Idaho Probate Court specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates, so Cecil was appointed administrator. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. From Chief Justice Burger's opinion;
To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex.
|
Contents
|
Significance
For the first time in history, the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution applied to differential treatment based on legal sex.[2]
Protecting women
While the first equal protection case to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, Reed did not issue a particularly strong prohibition of this type of legislation. Instead of elevating women to suspect classification by reviewing the law under a very restrictive standard known as strict scrutiny, the court subjected the Idaho statute using rational basis review. The court found that the Idaho statute failed to satisfy this lower standard because the statute did not provide a rational way to pursue a legitimate state interest. This had a less profound effect than the litigant's supporters had hoped, "because the reasonableness test was so malleable, challenges to discriminatory legislation would now have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis."[3]
While the first equal protection case to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, Reed did not issue a particularly strong prohibition of this type of legislation. Although the Court acknowledged, under the traditional standard of review for equal protection claims, the rational basis standard, that the statutory objective was legitimate and that the sex-based classification did advance that objective, it nevertheless declared that the arrangement violated the Equal Protection Clause. The ambiguity in the Court's reasoning left room for further efforts seeking a more intensive standard of review in gender discrimination cases.
See also
References
- ^ reed v. reed
- ^ Reed v. Reed - Significance, Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972
- ^ Wexler, Natalie (2000). "Sex Discrimination: The Search for a Standard". Supreme Court Decisions and Equal Rights. Congressional Quarterly. Archived from the original on 2007-04-03. http://web.archive.org/web/20070403224905/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/05_learning/subs/05_e.html. Retrieved 2007-05-12.
External links
 |
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
- Text of Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) is available from: Justia · Findlaw · resource.org · OpenJurist
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:
Copyrights:
Oxford Companion to the US Supreme Court
The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Read more
Oxford Guide to the US Government
The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002 by John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, Donald M. Ritchie. All rights reserved.
Read more
Gale Encyclopedia of US History
Encyclopedia of American History Copyright © 2006 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read more
