Supreme Court

I was lucky enough to take a field trip from work yesterday to watch oral arguments at the Supreme Court. That would be enjoyable for me under any circumstances, but yesterday it was particularly exciting because the case I saw argued has very serious implications for women. Read more »

Yesterday, 26 states filed a brief with the Supreme Court challenging the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. These states are asking the Supreme Court to make an unprecedented decision that could leave 10 million women without access to medical services and could put countless civil rights laws at risk.

The states claim that the Medicaid expansion is coercive because, given state budgetary constraints, states can’t really opt out of Medicaid so they are coerced into covering the expanded population and not cutting back on current eligibility rules. But states can opt out and at least two states – including the lead state on the Supreme Court challenge – have publically considered the possibility. If a state chooses to continue offering Medicaid and comply with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act because offering Medicaid is the best option to provide health care to the state residents, that isn’t coercion. That is proof that Medicaid works. Read more »

Speaking in Yuma, Arizona on Tuesday, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told of her harrowing search for work as a young lawyer recently graduated from Stanford Law in 1952. She called every firm recruiting Stanford graduates, but “not one of them would talk to me. I was female. They didn’t intend that a woman would make an appointment.”

Finally, she interviewed with a fellow female law student’s father, a lawyer in Los Angeles. She thought surely he would give her a chance, but “he said he was impressed but that the law firm had never hired a woman lawyer and that he didn’t see a day when it would.” He offered her a job as a legal secretary instead.

How times change. Today, that very law firm has hired hundreds of women, and the same lawyer supported Justice O’Connor’s later appointment to the Supreme Court.

Justice O’Connor’s difficulties are echoed by many female judges who graduated from law school in the same era and went on to hold high-ranking positions in the federal judiciary. But even though female lawyers have become commonplace in the legal field, it’s a different story when it comes to the judiciary.  Even though women comprise nearly half of all law school graduates, far fewer make it to the federal judiciary. Read more »

Forty years ago today, for the first time in its history, the Supreme Court held that a law that discriminated against women violated the Constitution. In Reed v. Reed, a unanimous Court struck down an Idaho law requiring the automatic preference of a man over a woman when both applied to be the executor of an estate. The Court recognized that women had a constitutional right to equal protection of the law, turning from a long list of previous rulings that allowed women to be excluded from juries, or the legal profession, or even bartending, on the grounds that women needed to be protected from the rough-and-tumble of the workplace or the public square, or confined to the sphere of hearth and home. The Court’s ruling was spurred by the advocacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who authored Sally Reed’s Supreme Court brief and whose efforts in that case and in a series of groundbreaking Supreme Court cases in the years that followed established constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of sex. Forty years ago today, the Supreme Court’s decision also gave new constitutional underpinnings to the statutory protections against sex discrimination in employment and an impetus and strength to an array of new statutory protections against discrimination in education, credit, and housing, as well as employment, in the years that followed. That work continues. Most recently, there is a new protection against sex discrimination in federally-funded health care, as part of the Affordable Care Act, closing yet one more gap in legal protection against discrimination women are still fighting to secure. Read more »

Happy anniversary! Forty years ago today, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time in history that a law that discriminated against women violated the Constitution. Reed v. Reed was the first in a series of path-breaking cases that established that the Constitution does not permit government to discriminate on the basis of sex unless it can prove it has an exceedingly persuasive justification for doing so. Today let’s start giving thanks a few days early and celebrate the cases that recognized that women are among those persons who may not be denied equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But while these victories merit celebration, today it is also important to remember that women still have much at stake in current arguments about the Constitution and its meaning. For example, a week ago, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid and individual responsibility provision are constitutional. The answers to these questions will determine the fate of the Affordable Care Act-- legislation of tremendous importance to women’s health. The Court’s decision may also affect other laws upon which women depend. Read more »

Reed v. Reed, the first case in which the Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution to strike down a law that discriminated on the basis of sex, was decided forty years ago this week. Read more »

We’re excited to have Allen Derr, attorney who argued for Sally Reed in the landmark Reed v Reed case, joining the audience tomorrow for a special panel to mark the 40^th anniversary of the case. The panel will be discussing the past and future of women’s legal rights under the Equal Protection Clause and you can register to join the live webcast here: http://action.nwlc.org/reedvreed

You can learn more about the Reed v Reed case here and also, read an article from the Idaho Statesman about Mr. Derr coming to Washington, D.C. for the event: Read more »

In 1971, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Idaho law that required the selection of a man over a woman to serve as administrator of an estate when both were equally qualified.  The landmark Reed v. Reed decision, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), marked the first time in history that the Court applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down a law that discriminated against women.

Background of the Reed v. Reed Case

The woman who challenged Idaho’s discriminatory statute was Sally Reed, a single mother who earned a living by caring for disabled people in her home.  The case began when her teenage son Skip died tragically. According to Sally, her ex-husband, Cecil Reed, was an abusive husband and father who deserted the family when their son was only three or four years old. After their divorce, Sally raised Skip during his “tender years,” but Cecil was awarded partial custody of Skip when he reached his teens.  During one of his visits, Skip was found dead in his father’s basement, having apparently shot himself with his father’s rifle. Skip’s death was determined a suicide, but Sally was suspicious because Cecil had taken out a life insurance policy on the boy.  Because Skip had died without a will, Sally filed a petition to be appointed administrator of his estate, which consisted of only $495 and a few personal belongings. Cecil Reed put in a rival application. Read more »

Only forty years ago, numerous federal and state laws treated men and women differently, to women’s grave disadvantage. It was not until Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), the landmark case decided forty years ago this month, that the Supreme Court began to strike down discriminatory laws and policies on the ground that they denied women – and men- the Equal Protection of the law that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

In the decision in a case entitled Frontiero v. Richardson, 431 U.S. 677 (1973), Justice Brennan wrote that “There can be no doubt that our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage.” He went on to say that “throughout much of the 19th century the position of women in our society was, in many respects, comparable to that of blacks under the pre-Civil War slave codes. Neither slaves nor women could hold office, serve on juries, or bring suit in their own names, and married women traditionally were denied the legal capacity to hold or convey property or to serve as legal guardians of their own children.”  

In the 20^th century – in 1920 – women finally got the right to vote, but many discriminatory laws remained on the books, and new social programs of the states and the federal government contained discriminatory provisions based on stereotypes about women’s role in the family and in society.

Here are some of the laws and policies that put women “in a cage” that were struck down by the Supreme Court in the forty years that followed Reed: Read more »

That key moment occurred 40 years ago, in November 1971, when the Supreme Court decided the case of Reed v. Reed, and, for the first time in history, applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down a law that discriminated against women. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently listed Reed v Reed as one of the seven most influential decisions that “reflect powerful and pivotal moments” in the Court’s history.

Learn all about this landmark case by registering for the live webcast of “Reed v. Reed at 40: Equal Protection and Women’s Rights,” a panel that will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2011, from 1-2:30 pm Eastern. Read more »