Opinion ID: 838950
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Orr v. Orr

Text: Perhaps most significantly, Michigan's dower scheme is distinguishable from the laws compared by the dissent because those laws are amenable to gender-neutral application. The dissent compares cases in which the United States Supreme Court has held that using gender as a proxy for need is unwarranted when nondiscriminatory means of determining need are equally available. Post at 249-50. It relies on Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979). But Orr is distinguishable for significant reasons that exemplify the differences between the case before us and the cases on which the dissent relies. The statute in Orr, which allowed for women but not men to receive alimony upon divorce, similarly sought to assist needy spouses and compensate for past discrimination. Id. at 280, 99 S.Ct. 1102. But, crucially, the statute in Orr provided for individualized hearings at which both spouses' financial circumstances were examined. Id. at 281, 99 S.Ct. 1102. Accordingly, the gender-based distinction was gratuitous; the hearings would allow similarly situated individuals to be treated the same with little if any additional burden on the state, and the effort to aid disadvantaged women would not in any way be compromised. Id. at 281-282, 99 S.Ct. 1102. Thus, the state's compensatory and ameliorative purposes [were] as well served by a gender-neutral classification as one that gender classifies.... Id. at 283, 99 S.Ct. 1102. In contrast, probate proceedings under Michigan's EPIC provide no such mechanism to determine financial need. I respectfully suggest that the dissent is too cavalier in suggesting that nondiscriminatory methods such as gender-neutral dower or [d]ower provisions that apply to those spouses who demonstrate an actual need for dower would serve the goals of dower equally well, if not better. Post at 251. While I concur that the Legislature would do well to establish a nondiscriminatory solution, as other states have done, the Legislature alone can determine the feasibility of such a solution in Michigan. At this time, individualized hearings such as those suggested by the dissent do not exist. As I will explain below, I also question the feasibility of creating a gender-neutral dower scheme that is consistent with existing property rights in Michigan. Accordingly, I do not think that Orr is controlling.