Orr v. Orr
Orr v. Orr is a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed gender discrimination in the context of alimony payments following divorce. The case arose when William Orr challenged the legality of a state law that mandated different alimony obligations for men and women, with him being required to pay alimony to his ex-wife, Lillian Orr. He argued that the law was discriminatory against men. The state justified the law by claiming it aimed to support needy ex-wives and address historical economic disparities between genders.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, led by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., applied heightened scrutiny to gender classifications, determining that the state's law was not appropriately aligned with its stated objectives. The Court concluded that a gender-neutral approach would effectively address the needs of ex-wives without reinforcing outdated gender stereotypes. The dissenting justices contended that William Orr did not have the standing to challenge the law, as a need-based system would not alter his financial responsibilities. This case is an important landmark in the discussion of gender equality and the legal standards used to evaluate gender-based discrimination in the United States.
Orr v. Orr
Date: March 5, 1979
Citation: 440 U.S. 268
Issues: Gender issues; standing
Significance: The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama’s law making husbands, but not wives, liable for alimony payments was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Craig v. Boren (1976), the Court had announced that it would henceforth evaluate gender classifications according to a heightened scrutiny standard. The Orr decision was an early application of this standard. When William and Lillian Orr were divorced, William Orr was ordered to make alimony payments to his former wife. He argued that the state’s differential requirements for men and women were discriminatory. The state responded that the law was justified by two important goals: providing for needy ex-wives and compensating them for the economic discrimination produced by the traditional marital role.
Speaking for a 6-3 majority, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., ruled that the law was not “substantially related” to the state’s legitimate objectives. Because alimony awards were based on individual circumstances, a gender-neutral law would give just as much help to needy ex-wives. Likewise, statutes designed to compensate for past discrimination must be “carefully tailored” not to discriminate unnecessarily and not to reinforce traditional “stereotypes about the ’proper place’ of women and their need for special protection.” The three dissenting justices argued that William Orr lacked standing to sue because a law based entirely on need would not have changed his financial obligations.