Orr v. Orr

Orr v. Orr
Supreme Court of the United States
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
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
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

Not to be confused with OVO.

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 violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ^[1]

Background

The state of Alabama had statutes that imposed alimony obligations on husbands but not on wives. The relevant statutes read, in part:

If the wife has no separate estate or if it be insufficient for her maintenance, the judge, upon granting a divorce, at his discretion, may order to the wife an allowance out of the estate of the husband, taking into consideration the value thereof and the condition of his family."

Ala.Code, Tit. 30, § 30-2-51 (1975).

The stated purpose was to address 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

The Court found that, because the Alabama statute provided for different treatment to individuals on the basis of sex; it was thus "subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause." "To withstand scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives, and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives." 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]

Dissent

The opinion had three dissenting votes, from Justices Powell, Rehnquist, and Burger. Powell wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court should abstain from addressing the constitutional questions, stating there were unsettled issues of state law that the Alabama Supreme Court should address before the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.

References

1. Jonathan D. Varat; William Cohen; Vikram Amar (2009). Constitutional Law Cases and Materials (Concise Thirteenth ed.). New York: Foundation Press. p. 580.
2. Varat, p. 581

External links

• Text of Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268(1979) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)