Reed v. Reed: Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by 71.186.161.147 (talk) to last version by Cydebot |
|||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
While the first [[equal protection clause|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."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.supremecourthistory.org/05_learning/subs/05_e.html |title=Sex Discrimination: The Search for a Standard |accessdate=2007-05-12 |last=Wexler |first=Natalie |year=2000 |work=Supreme Court Decisions and Equal Rights |publisher=Congressional Quarterly}}</ref> |
While the first [[equal protection clause|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."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.supremecourthistory.org/05_learning/subs/05_e.html |title=Sex Discrimination: The Search for a Standard |accessdate=2007-05-12 |last=Wexler |first=Natalie |year=2000 |work=Supreme Court Decisions and Equal Rights |publisher=Congressional Quarterly}}</ref> |
||
<s>'''CLAUDIA ROCKS :DDD'''</s> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 23:19, 5 December 2009
| Reed v. Reed | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 19, 1971 Decided November 22, 1971 | |
| Full case name | Reed v. Reed, Administrator Appeal from the Supreme Court of Idaho |
| Citations | 404 U.S. 71 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent | 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 opinion | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by unanimous court |
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, 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.
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."[1]
CLAUDIA ROCKS :DDD
See also
References
- ^ Wexler, Natalie (2000). "Sex Discrimination: The Search for a Standard". Supreme Court Decisions and Equal Rights. Congressional Quarterly. Retrieved 2007-05-12.
External links
Works related to Reed v. Reed at Wikisource