Summary
Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that Alabama statutes that imposed alimony obligations on husbands but not on wives was an unconstitutional equal protection violation.[1]
| Orr v. Orr | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 27, 1978 Decided March 5, 1979 | |
| Full case name | William Orr v. Lillian Orr |
| Citations | 440 U.S. 268 (more) 99 S. Ct. 1102; 59 L. Ed. 2d 306; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 65 |
| Holding | |
| The Alabama statute granting alimony only to women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Dissent | Powell |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Burger |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Background edit
The state of Alabama had adopted statutes that imposed alimony obligations on husbands but not on wives for the stated purpose of addressing the economic disparity between men and women by providing support for needy women after divorce.[1]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Margaret Moses Young filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Opinion of the Court edit
Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court determined that the statute was not substantially related to the stated purpose. The Court observed that a gender neutral statute would still have the effect of providing for needy women. The Court further observed that the only difference created by the Alabama statute was to also provide support for well off women that did not need support, and to exclude needy men from support.[2]