Reed v Reed
| Reed v. Reed | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 19, 1971 Decided November 22, 1971 |
|
| Full case name | Sally M. Reed, Appellant, v. Cecil R. Reed, Administrator, etc. |
| Citations | 404 U.S. 71 (more) |
| Subsequent history | 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 opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by unanimous |
| Justices Black and Harlan retired from the Court on September 17th and 23rd (Black died September 25th), respectively, and took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
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.
Sally and Cecil Reed, a married couple who had separated, were in conflict over which of them to designate as administrator of the estate of their deceased son. Each filed a petition with the Probate Court of Ada County, Idaho, asking to be named. Idaho Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates and the court appointed Cecil as administrator of the estate, valued at less than $1000. Sally Reed was represented at the Supreme Court by Idaho lawyer, Allen Derr, who argued that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids discrimination based on gender.
After a series of appeals by both Sally and Cecil Reed, the Supreme Court considered the case and delivered a unanimous decision that held the Idaho Code's preference in favor of males was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled for the first time in Reed v. Reed that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited differential treatment based on sex.
Because the Idaho Code made a distinction based on sex, the court reasoned that "it thus establishes a classification subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause" and using the generic standard of scrutiny—ordinary or rational basis review—asked "whether a difference in the sex of competing applicants for letters of administration bears a rational relationship to a state objective."
Chief Justice Burger's opinion said:
...
Wikipedia