CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


ORR V. ORR, 440 U. S. 268 (1979)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 440 U. S. 268 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)

Orr v. Orr

No. 77-1119

Argued November 27, 1978

Decided March 5, 1979

440 U.S. 268

Syllabus

Following a stipulation between appellant husband and appellee wife, in which appellant agreed to pay appellee alimony, an Alabama court, acting pursuant to state alimony statutes under which husbands, but not wives, may be required to pay alimony upon divorce, ordered appellant to make monthly alimony payments. Some two years thereafter, appellee filed a petition seeking to have appellant adjudged in contempt for failing to maintain the alimony payments. At the hearing on the petition appellant, though not claiming that he was entitled to an alimony award from appellee, made the contention (advanced for the first time in that proceeding) that the Alabama statutes, by virtue of their reliance on a gender-based classification, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court, ruling adversely to appellant on that issue, entered judgment against him, which was affirmed on appeal.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over appellant's appeal. Pp. 440 U. S. 271-278.

(a) Appellant's failure to ask for alimony for himself does not deprive him of standing to attack the constitutionality of the Alabama statutes for underinclusiveness. That attack holds the only promise of relief from the burden deriving from the challenged statutes, and appellant has therefore

"alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which th[is] court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."

Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 204. Pp. 440 U. S. 271-273.

(b) Had the courts below refused to entertain appellant's constitutional contention on the ground that it was not timely made under applicable state procedures, this Court might have lacked jurisdiction to consider the contention; but no timeliness point was raised or considered below and the constitutional issue was decided on the merits. Under these circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the decision below could have been based upon an adequate and independent state ground. Pp. 440 U. S. 274-275.

(c) No point was raised or considered below that appellant, by virtue of the stipulation, was obliged to make the alimony payments under state contract law.

"Where the state court does not decide

Page 440 U. S. 269

against [an] appellant upon an independent state ground, but deeming the federal question to be before it, actually . . . decides that question adversely to the federal right asserted, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment if, as here, it is . . . final. . . ."

Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95, 303 U. S. 98. Pp. 440 U. S. 275-278.

2. The Alabama statutory scheme of imposing alimony obligations on husbands, but not wives, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 278-283.

(a) "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.'"

Califano v. Webster, 430 U. S. 313, 430 U. S. 316-317. Pp. 440 U. S. 278-279.

(b) The statutes cannot be validated on the basis of the State's preference for an allocation of family responsibilities under which the wife plays a dependent role.

"No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas."

Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S. 7, 421 U. S. 14-15. Pp. 440 U. S. 279-280.

(c) Though it could be argued that the Alabama statutory scheme is designed to provide help for needy spouses, using sex as a proxy for need, and to compensate women for past discrimination during marriage, which assertedly has left them unprepared to fend for themselves in the working world following divorce, these considerations would not justify that scheme, because, under the Alabama statutes, individualized hearings at which the parties' relative financial circumstances are considered already occur. Since such hearings can determine which spouses are needy, as well as which wives were, in fact, discriminated against, there is no reason to operate by generalization. "Thus, the gender-based distinction is gratuitous. . . ." Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 420 U. S. 653. Pp. 440 U. S. 280-282.

(d) Use of a gender classification, moreover, actually produces perverse results in this case, because only a financially secure wife whose husband is in need derives an advantage from the Alabama scheme, as compared to a gender-neutral one. Pp. 440 U. S. 282-283.

3. The question remains open on remand whether appellant's stipulated agreement to pay alimony, or other grounds of gender-neutral state law, bind him to continue his alimony payments. Pp. 440 U. S. 283-284.

351 So.2d 904, reversed and remanded.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, , delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, , delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 440 U. S. 270

J., post, p. 440 U. S. 284, and STEVENS, J., post, p. 440 U. S. 284, filed concurring opinions. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 440 U. S. 285. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J.,joined, post, p. 440 U. S. 290.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED