Reed v. Reed

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Reed v. Reed
ArgueDate=October 19
ArgueYear=1971
DecideDate=November 22
DecideYear=1971
FullName=Reed v. Reed, Administrator Appeal from the Supreme Court of Idaho
USVol=404
USPage=71
Citation=
Prior=
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.
SCOTUS=1970-1971
Majority=Burger
JoinMajority=unanimous court
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"Reed v. Reed", ussc|404|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." [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]

ee also

* "Craig v. Boren"
* "Frontiero v. Richardson"
*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 404

References

External links

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=404&invol=71 Text file of Supreme Court opinion at Findlaw.com]