Opinion ID: 838950
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kahn v. Shevin

Text: Next, in Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351, 94 S.Ct. 1734, 40 L.Ed.2d 189(1974), the United States Supreme Court expressly recognized the disparate financial effect on women who lose their spouses. Citing labor statistics similar to those cited above concerning economic and wage disparity between the sexes, the Kahn Court concluded that a Florida tax law granting a $500 property tax exemption to widows but not widowers permissibly cushion[ed] the financial impact of spousal loss upon the sex for which that loss imposes a disproportionately heavy burden. Id. at 353-355, 94 S.Ct. 1734. Thus, Kahn is directly relevant to the case before us and supports the conclusion that gender-based dower does not offend equal protection. Further, in her brief, Sharon Miltenberger makes the following compelling observation: A woman of 65 now, one most likely to be in the class taking benefit of dower, was 34 when the statistics relied upon in the Kahn decision were recorded. The majority of today's widows were in their prime earning capacity years when women, even college educated women, earned far less than nearly any man. This deprived them not only of earnings at that time, but also the ability to accumulate wealth and property for the future. Finally, like the statute in Webster and Michigan's dower scheme, the law upheld in Kahn is underinclusive of needy spouses because it does not address the needs of less wealthy widowers and overinclusive of widows because it does not exclude high-earning women. The dissent essentially dismisses Kahn, opining that the Court employed rational basis review instead of heightened scrutiny. Post at 255. I do not think that Kahn may be so easily overlooked. Kahn was indeed decided before the United States Supreme Court established the modern test for intermediate scrutiny, which requires a gender classification to be substantially related to important governmental objectives.... Craig, 429 U.S. at 197, 97 S.Ct. 451. Rational basis review merely requires a classification to be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988). Kahn upheld the law at issue by concluding that Florida's differing treatment of widows and widowers 'rest[s] upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation.' Kahn, 416 U.S. at 355, 94 S.Ct. 1734 quoting Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 76, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971) (emphasis added; citation omitted). Thus, the Kahn Court's conclusion appears to have been grounded in something more than a rational connection between the classification and a legitimate governmental purpose. Rather, the Kahn Court concluded that the classification bore a substantial relation to the goal of cushioning the effect of economic discrimination and disparity in income after the loss of a spouse, which the dissent agrees is an important governmental objective. And, as the dissent concedes, Kahn has not been overruled, post at 255, but is still good law. Accordingly, I conclude that Kahn remains persuasive here. [19] The dissent also distinguishes Kahn because it relied heavily on the fact that the provision at issue was a tax provision.... Post at 255. The Kahn Court observed: States have large leeway in making classifications and drawing lines which in their judgment produce reasonable systems of taxation when `taxation is concerned and no specific federal right, apart from equal protection, is imperiled....' Kahn, 416 U.S. at 355, 94 S.Ct. 1734 (citation omitted); post at 255. Because Kahn stated that leeway is afforded when taxation is concerned and no federal right apart from equal protection is involved, I cannot conclude that the Court's decision that the law comported with the Equal Protection Clause arose merely or primarily from special deference to Florida's taxing power.