Orr v. Orr

Week 12 — Sex Discrimination — Stereotypes

Facts

Alabama's alimony statute required husbands, but never wives, to pay alimony.
The law was challenged as a sex-based classification under the Equal Protection Clause.

Whether a state alimony law that benefits women but reinforces gender stereotypes about marriage and dependency satisfies intermediate scrutiny.

No. The classification was unconstitutional.

State actions that benefit women but have the purpose of reinforcing gender stereotypes will not withstand intermediate scrutiny.
Invalid government objective: reinforcing traditional family roles (wives fully dependent on their husbands).
Valid government objectives related to marriage:
- Providing financial assistance to needy spouses; and
- Compensating women for past economic discrimination during marriage.
Although the statute formally benefited women, the sex-based classification was unnecessary to accomplish the government's objective.
Counterintuitively, the law actually undermined the legitimate goal of providing for needy spouses (since needy husbands were excluded).

Stated differently: any state action that has the purpose of reinforcing gender stereotypes will be struck down, even if designed to benefit women.
Under intermediate scrutiny there needs to be a substantial relation between the classification and the important government interest.