Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). Facts: Idaho had a law designating men to be the administrators of estates, and not women. The state’s reasoning was that it prevented a burden on the probate courts of having to decide each case based on a hearing on the merits of whether the petitioning woman or petitioning man was better suited to be the administrator. Procedural Posture: The state courts had sustained the law as a legitimate means of reducing the burden on the courts. Issue: Whether the law is in violation of equal protection. Holding: Yes. Reasoning: [Burger] applied a mere rational basis standard to strike down the law. He refused to find that sex was suspect classification. Although the reduction of the burden on the probate courts was a legitimate end, the classification was a completely arbitrary method of acheiving that end. The equal protection clause was meant to prevent exactly this kind of a arbirary means-ends relationship. Prepared by Roger Martin
Copyright © 2010 LexRoll.com |
