Reed v. Reed

Citation. 404 U.S. 71, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971).

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff challenged an Idaho statute which indicated males were preferred to females in the administration of an intestate estate.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Statutes with gender-based classifications must be substantially related to an important government interest in order to be valid under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Facts.

An Idaho statute provided that males were preferred to females in the administration of an intestate estate. Solely because of this statute, an Idaho court appointed a father rathe than a mother of a deceased child as administrator. The mother challenged this decision on Equal Protection grounds.

Issue.

Whether a statute preferring males over females in the administration of an estate violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Held.

Yes. A statute preferring males over females in the administration of an estate violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Discussion.

Clearly the objective of reducing the workload on probate courts by eliminating one class of contests is not without some legitimacy. The crucial question, however, is whether the law advances an objective in a manner which is consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It does not. To give mandatory preference to members of either class over the other, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. Judgement reversed and remanded.