Remember when responding to court cases to summarize by including Facts/Question/Holding/Rule/Reasoning. Expand on how other readings help us understand these cases. Where are regime interests? What subjective values are being hidden under the guise of objectivity? How is gender being regulated?
Women and Law Summer 2019
Women and the Law, Summer 2019, Hunter College
Frontiero v Richardson was brought to the Supreme Court when secretary of defense Elliot Richardson declined lieutenant Sharron Frontiero’s request for a dependent’s allowance for her husband. Federal law guaranteed an dependent’s allowance for wives of military men, but required that husbands of military women be dependent on their wives for over half of their support to be considered eligible for the same dependent’s allowance. In other words, benefits for spouses of military personnel differed for male and female military personnel. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the federal law governing dependent’s allowance for military personnel violated the Fifth Amendment by discriminating against women. The Supreme Court ruled that by discriminating according to gender the federal law did violate the part of the fifth amendment that states that no citizen of the US will be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The decision in my opinion was an important step in gender equality in law. By affirming that as citizens of the US men and women are equally entitled to protection from deprival of life, liberty or property without due process of law, the case affirmed that women are equal to men under the law. It used the same argument as Reed v Reed, and reaffirmed the importance of the case, and the huge step forward for gender equality that that case signified. The decision is significant also because military service was an important marker of citizenship for emancipated blacks during the revolutionary war. The decision of Frontiero v Richardson still held racial discrimination to a stricter standard than gender discrimination, but established that women in service were citizens entitled to the same protections as men in service. It is interesting to think that gender equality was protected in the military before the ERA passed. A fiscally conservative approach to gender equality under the law governing military dependent’s allowance would have been to require both men and women be required to prove dependence of their spouses of over half of their household income. The Frontiero v Richardson case thus shows that contrary to Phyllis Schlafly’s argument, equality under the law tends much more to extend the gender specific freedoms to include women, not to take away rights from women. In response to Catharine MacKinnon, who argued that equal protection under the constitution was not enough for gender equity, because the constitution does not consider the specific needs of women, the case shows that the gender specification is not an inherent part of the constitution.
Romer v. Evans (1996)
Facts: In Colorado, various ordinances were issued, affording protection to persons discriminated against by reason of sexual orientation. In order to counter these initiatives, voters passed Amendment 2. Amendment 2 prohibited all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of Colorado government designed to make homosexuals a protected class. The trial court found that Amendment 2 failed to satisfy strict scrutiny. The State Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed. It held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process.
Issue/Question: Did Colorado’s Amendment 2 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding: Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Rule: The Supreme Court upheld the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Reasoning: Kennedy, who delivered the majority opinion, argued that the amendment excluded gays and lesbians from general laws and policies. The Court also argued that the Colorado constitutional amendment could not specifically target homosexuals based on hostility, because this lacked a legitimate governmental purpose.
Romer v. Evans is a great example of regime interests being enacted through Supreme Court decisions. While this Supreme Court Case is from 1996, many gay rights activists saw this case as the beginning stages of hope for getting gay marriage legalized. This decision hid many subjective values under the guise of objectivity. For example, the Supreme Court is suggesting that even though laws that openly ban gay activity are allowed at this time, gay people deserve the same rights and protections as everyone else. The same way that it would not be ok to discriminate against someone because they were black or jewish, this case represents a shift in American society in recognizing the identity of homosexuals and their need to be a protected category. Sexuality has been stigmatized in America since the very beginning. In our class discussions and some of our first readings we discussed the ways sodomy and homosexuality was made illegal. This case represents a shift away from that era of America. This is an important decision because it shows that when Colorado tried to regulate sexuality by not protecting it, the Supreme Court ruled that this was an unconstitutional act under the Equal Protection Clause.
Craig v Boren
Craig, the appellant challenged the Oklahoma court that allowed women to drink beer with an alcohol content of 3.2 at the age of 18 but men at the age of 21. He challenged them because he believed that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because of unequal treatment due to gender. The district court upheld the statute so Craig appealed directly to the US Supreme Court. The question is: Does the statute that women to buy alcohol at a certain age but not to men of the same age violate the Equal Protection Clause? Boren, the defendant, said that the law was constitutional because, according to their statistics, only 0.18% of women drive under the influence compared to 2% of men. The US Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional. They stated that Oklahoma failed to show that the gender based law was fixing the problem; there was no direct correlation or solution that the law produced. Justice Brennan stated that Oklahoma didn’t show statistics on the dangers that the 3.2 percent beer had compared to other alcohol which weakened the argument further. This case allowed the creation of intermediate scrutiny. Prior to this case, the US Supreme Court usually used one of two equal-protection review standards: rational basis or strict scrutiny. The court stated that gender based classifications must be held between these two standards: intermediate scrutiny, where the law has to help strengthen a government objective. Oklahoma said this “important governmental objective” was to promote traffic safety. Boren, the defendant, said that the law was constitutional because, according to their statistics, only 0.18% of women drive under the influence compared to 2% of men.
From this case, I feel like there are some heavy gender stereotypes: with men, if they drink this specific type of beer at the same age women are, they are more likely to cause traffic accidents. Also there hasn’t been any solid evidence which shows that this law actually helps with traffic safety. I think it’s very disappointing how in this nation, there have been many cases which have been explicitly discriminated against women, yet when there’s a case that shows men being treated less favorably than women, the Supreme Court changes the rule/law right away. One question I would have to ask is, if the Supreme Court will only support a government objective if it favors men more. I mean, yes, the fact that men couldn’t drink beer at this specific alcohol content at the same age as women are allowed to is unfair but compared to other cases, such as Bradwell v. Illinois, (where Bradwell couldn’t be a lawyer because she was a married woman and the fourteenth amendment did not protect the right to obtain a law license), it’s confusing to see what objectives are important for the court to justify it with the fourteenth amendment.
Reed v Reed (1971)
Sally and Cecil Reed were separated parents of their adopted son Richard Lynn Reed, who passed away in March of 1967. After his death, Sally Reed filed a petition in the Probate Court of Ada County, Idaho seeking to be appointment as legal administrator of her deceased son estate. The father of the boy also filed a competing petition seeking to be appointed as estate administrator. The Idaho Code of that time specified that: “of several persons claiming and equally entitled [under § 1312] to administer, males must be preferred to females, and relatives of the whole to those of the half blood.” Thus, according to this law the court appointment Cecile Reed as an administrator of estate of Richard Reed. After multiple appeals by Sally Reed, the case finally was reviewed by the Supreme Court whichruled that the Idaho Code “cannot stand in the face of the 14th Amendment”, that guarantees the “equal protection of the laws to any person within its jurisdiction”.
In my opinion, the fact that judge based his decision solely on gender of the candidate, without even taking into consideration other additional facts, doesn’t sound fair. I think, Sally Reed stood her ground not only against her ex-husband, but also against inequality. Clearly unjust treatment by the local Idaho court system made her go higher to Supreme Court which eventually recognized discrimination based solely on gender as violation of the Constitution. I think, the case Reed v. Reed was very important, because it’s made a statement for future cases, that gender-based classification is not only morally wrong, but also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Your discussion of fairness links to the discussion we had in class about courts. In class, we discussed whether courts should decide cases based on the written law or what is “right.” Obviously this law is discriminatory and offensive. However, the court in this instance ruled in favor of the text that was in place. This case seems like a perfect example where the supreme court should have exercised judicial review. However, courts are always looking out for the regime’s interest. It is in the interest of the individuals in the regime to entrench the patriarchy through sexist property laws. Thus, the court has historically exercised judicial review when the government has something to gain, not citizens.
Romer v Evans depicts the declaration, by the Supreme Court, that the enactment of Amendment 2, a constitutional provision that removed special protection given to homosexuals in the state of Colorado. It also portrays how Amendment 2 affected the homosexual community. The point of Amendment 2 was to put homosexuals on even footing with the rest of the community, but also taking away some of their governmental and political rights. It prohibits all executive, judicial, and legislative action of state or local government designed to protect them. It was supposedly to respect other citizens’ freedom of association and in particular the liberties of individuals that have religious or personal grievances to homosexuality. In addition, Amendment 2 violated the right of homosexuals to participate in the political process. They are also not allowed safeguards that others may seek without issue. Amendment 2 does not solely remove protective rights; it subjugates homosexuals for now, they are at a disadvantage.
The installment of Amendment 2 in Colorado was unfair and was due to the fact that homosexual conduct was seen as immoral or wrong. These special rights were given to them because of the discriminatory nature of people, especially when applied to this heated topic. The fact that the primary reason for Amendment 2 was to appease those who had personal or religious issues with homosexuals is ridiculous. Also, the fact that this law put homosexuals at such a disadvantage is unacceptable and is a direct violation of their civil rights. It is not all right that Colorado tried so vehemently to keep homosexuals from having the rights and protections they deserve.
Reed v Reed (1971) and Craig v Boren (1976). Strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny. Very interestingly put together and explained by the Court. I will discuss the first one. In the 1970s the Court had two tests to analyze and apply an Equal Protection Clause, rational basis and strict scrutiny. Sally Reed’s brief argues that the case was about the strict scrutiny. The decision itself in Reed did not address whether discrimination based on sex was a case of strict scrutiny; and only five years later in Craig v Boren the Court established a “standard” for sex discrimination, and it was placed under the category of middle-tier scrutiny (intermediate scrutiny). Not addressing sex discrimination as a case of strict scrutiny (for Sally Reed) was sufficient for that time, too. The Court had to rule in a certain way (below I continue that connection of societal moods and political decisions) but the same Court could not open the doors for many more laws to change following Sally Reed and admitting that centuries of discriminatory laws based on sex were cases of strict scrutiny in the country.
While reading Reed, I was thinking how it captures the same time frame like the documentary we’ve watched “She is Beautiful When She is Angry”, and Sally Reed was as if one of the women shown there; this is how I started envisioning her. A woman who decided to get separated with a husband, and a woman who spoke up for constitutional rights (fundamental rights) of hers. Why I am saying this is because this case was definitely not the only one of that time, and the social & economic moods were affecting the political decisions, and how the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause was interpreted and who it applied to. In the context of time it did become impossible not to interpret it the way it was. Phillips v Martin Marietta reached the Court the same year, huge female activist movements were happening in DC and everywhere else in the USA, women’s voices were becoming heard and listened to, and hence, the Reed’s decision: the Equal Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits differential treatment based on sex. It is worth mentioning that the decision was UNANIMOUS.
It was an interesting case to me personally because I lived in Twin Falls, Idaho while attending the College of Southern Idaho in 2007, and taking into account the population of Idaho, with about 90% of white population, a lot of Mormons from Utah, old-fashioned moods, big agricultural sector of economy, big percent of Evangelist Protestant population makes this case very heartening. Sally Reed may be seen as a protagonist, too. At the same time, there is an element to this case that a strong constitutional amendment must be used to secure the gender equality. This case created a framework to analyze sex-based discrimination in a large scale. Hundreds of laws changed after the Reed v Reed decision.
Facts: Sally and Cecil Reed had an adoptive son names Richard Reed. Both parents had to deal with the death of their son Richard when he was just a minor in Ada County, Idaho. His parents who were separated, were the parties to his appeal. Sally filed for a petition in the probate court of Ada county to be recognized as administrator of her son’s estate, seven months after. Before sally took those actions, the father Cecil Reed did the same. In the state of Idaho, their probate code states that males must be preferred to females, when it comes to appointing administrators of estates. The court then held a joint hearing for both petitions. The court then ordered for a letter of administration be issued to appealed. Cecil form him taking oath and filing the bond required.
Question: Did the Idaho probate code violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
Conclusion: The Idaho probate code did violate the fourteenth amendment. The court held that the law’s dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional the court stated that giving either man nor women mandatory preference, in order to accomplish the eliminations of hearing on the merits, is forbidden by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
Although the question of this case was whether or not the Idaho Probate code violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth, that should not have been the sole reasoning for the ruling. This ruling was solely based on gender and no further information. More information should have been sought out so that the ruling would have went to the best person who it suits. Though I felt more information should have presented, this case paved the way for the women who are and were discriminated against for their sex is in fact a violation of the constitution. Sally Reed did do the right thing by standing up for herself and her rights. Then went based off how the fourteenth amendment was interpret and not who it applied to as it should. The role of genders need to be eliminated in cases such as Reed v. Reed.