Orr v. Orr
Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 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.
Background
The state of Alabama had statutes that imposed alimony obligations on husbands but not on wives.The relevant statutes read, in part:
Ala.Code, Tit. 30, § 30-2-51.
The stated purpose was to address the economic disparity between men and women by providing support for needy women after divorce.
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.