Document: 440 U.S. 268 99 S.Ct. 1102 59 L.Ed.2d 306 William Herbert ORR, Appellant,v.Lillian M. ORR. No. 77-1119. Argued Nov. 27, 1978. Decided March 5, 1979. Syllabus Following a stipulation between appellant husband and appellee wife, in which agreed to pay alimony, an Alabama court, acting pursuant state alimony statutes under husbands but not wives may be required upon divorce, ordered make monthly payments. Some two years thereafter filed petition seeking have adjudged contempt for failing maintain the At hearing on appellant, though claiming that he was entitled award from appellee, made contention (advanced first time proceeding) statutes, by virtue of their reliance gender-based classification, violated Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. The trial ruling adversely issue, entered judgment against him, affirmed appeal. Held: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over appellant's Pp. 271-278. (a) Appellant's failure ask himself does deprive him standing attack constitutionality underinclusiveness. That holds only promise relief burden deriving challenged therefore "alleged such personal stake outcome controversy as assure concrete adverseness sharpens presentation issues th[is] court so largely depends illumination difficult constitutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 186, 204, 82 691, 703, 7 663. 271-273. (b) Had courts below refused entertain ground it timely applicable procedures this might lacked consider contention; no timeliness point raised or considered issue decided merits. Under these circumstances is irrelevant whether decision could been based adequate independent ground. 274-275. (c) No obliged payments contract law. "Where decide [an] ground, deeming federal question before it, actually . decides right asserted, review if, here, final ." Indiana ex rel. Anderson Brand, 303 95, 98, 58 443, 445, L.Ed. 685. 275-278. 2. statutory scheme imposing obligations violates 278-283. "To withstand scrutiny" Clause, " 'classifications gender must serve important governmental objectives substantially related achievement those objectives.' Califano Webster, 430 313, 316-317, 97 1192, 1194, 51 360. 278-279. cannot validated basis State's preference allocation family responsibilities wife plays dependent role. "No longer female destined solely home rearing family, male marketplace world ideas." Stanton Stanton, 421 7, 14-15, 95 1373, 1375-1376, 43 688. 279-280. Though argued designed provide help needy spouses, using sex proxy need, compensate women past discrimination during marriage, assertedly left them unprepared fend themselves working following considerations would justify because individualized hearings at parties' relative financial are already occur. Since can determine spouses well were fact discriminated against, there reason operate generalization. "Thus, distinction gratuitous Weinberger Wiesenfeld, 420 636, 653, 1225, 1235, 514. 280-282. (d) Use moreover, produces perverse results case financially secure whose need derives advantage compared gender-neutral one. 282-283. 3. remains open remand stipulated agreement other grounds law, bind continue his 283-284. Ala., 351 So.2d 904, reversed remanded. John L. Capell, III, Montgomery, appellant. W. F. Horsley, Opelika, appellee. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 presented husbands, wives, divorce.1 2 On February 26, 1974, decree divorce entered, dissolving marriage Lillian Orr. directed Orr, Mrs. $1,240 per month alimony. July 28, 1976, Orr initiated proceeding Circuit Lee County, alleging arrears August 19, Orr's petition, submitted defense motion requesting Alabama's declared unconstitutional they authorize place obligation never wives. denied $5,524, covering back attorney fees. Relying claim, appealed judgment. 16, 1977, Civil Appeals sustained 904. May 24, Supreme granted writ certiorari, November 10, without opinion, quashed improvidently granted. 906. We noted probable jurisdiction, 436 924, 98 2817, 56 767 (1978). now hold reverse. 3 * address three preliminary questions parties below, nevertheless jurisdictional our own motion. 4 concerns assert unconstitutionality statutes. It appears claim should if similarly situated pay.2 possible success here will ultimately bring outstanding State respond reversal neutrally extending rights In event, remain obligated wife. thus "proper plaintiff" who requested himself, one merely objected paying 5 argument quite clearly proves too much. every equal protection statute underinclusive, satisfy Constitution's commands either benefits previously disfavored class denying both (e. g., repealing whole). case, held unconstitutional, by, inter alia, amendments (1) permit awards (2) deny parties. true disposition gain nothing Court, although hypothetical "requesting" plaintiff would. However, instead takes second course denies benefit. Because we way knowing how respond, unless underinclusive any plaintiff's theoretically thwarted, here. several occasions inherent problem challenges 17, 1379, 688 (1975); Craig Boren, 429 190, 210 n. 451, 463 50 397 (1976), 6 There bears bear female. highlighted, altered, transposing sphere race. doubt law blacks whites black pay. alone sufficient establish standing. Our resolution statute's often "not finally resolve th[e] appellee," U.S., S.Ct., 1379. do simply "appellant, prevailing win [his] lawsuit." Id., 18, holdings stand total bar relief; escape He Linda R. S. Richard D., 410 614, 616, 93 1146, 1148, 35 536 (1973), quoting 663 (1962). Indeed, indistinguishable facts, stated party's sustained. supra, 619 1149 (Marshall, J.), parent legitimate child support challenge illegitimate equally burdened.3 A original decree; did interpose Constitution until ex-wife sought abide terms decree. unexcused tardiness constituted procedural default had hear objection See C. Wright, Federal Courts 541-542 (3d ed. 1976). 8 But neither nor issue. Instead, properly So.2d, 905; App. Juris. Statement 22a. circumstances, COMPLAINT 'COMES TOO LATE' IS CLEARLY untenable. [s]ince deemed treat resting even conclude relied avoid deciding question." Beecher Alabama, 389 35, 37, 3, 88 189, 190 19 (1967). application "elementary rule inquire when decided." Manhattan Life Ins. Co. Cohen, 234 123, 134, 34 874, 877, 1245 (1914). Accord, Harlin Missouri, 439 459, 709, 733 (1979); Jenkins Georgia, 418 153, 157, 94 2750, 2753, 41 642 (1974); Raley Ohio, 360 423, 436, 79 1257, 1265, 1344 (1959). 542.4 9 third arises indications record part into parties, then incorporated County Thus, despite continuing former agreement—in essence matter law.5 If held, anchored judgments basis, exist power argument. Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 125-126, 65 462-463, 89 789 (1945); Fox Film Corp. Muller, 296 207, 183, 80 158 (1935). And ambiguity grounds, question, clarification decision. California Krivda, 409 33, 32, 45 (1972). 10 raise alternative her brief expressly "[t]he agrees laws classification statutes." 25a. reached considering state-law issues, latter specifying sole unconstitutional. find affirm." 905. While given Court's majority quashing concurring dissenting opinions mention stipulation. 906-910. record, then, clear dictated long line decisions. 11 petitioner entertains refuse its decision, consistently with non-federal ground." 685 (1938). 12 United Air Lines, Inc. Mahin, 623, 630-631, 1186, 1191, 545 (1973); Poafpybitty Skelly Oil Co., 390 365, 375-376, 982, 987, 1238 (1968); Steele Louisville & Nashville 323 192, 197 1, 226, 229 173 (1944); International Steel Iron National Surety 297 657, 666, 619, 961 (1936); Grayson Harris, 267 352, 358, 317, 319, 69 652 (1925); Red Cross Line Atlantic Fruit 264 109, 120, 44 274, 275, 68 582 (1924); Rogers Hennepin 240 184, 188-189, 36 265, 267, 60 594 (1916). Courts, 544.6 13 analysis questions, therefore, indicates asserted Orr.7 As Art. III "case controversy" turn merits.8 II 14 authorizing imposition "provides different treatment accorded sex; establishes subject scrutiny Clause," Reed Reed, 404 71, 75, 92 251, 253, 30 225 (1971). discriminates men rather than protect scrutiny. (1976). (1977). shall, examine arguably served scheme. 15 Appellant views effectively announcing role, objective reinforcement model among citizens. Cf. Stern Stern, 165 Conn. 332 A.2d 78 (1973). agree, urges, prior cases settle purpose sustain statutes.9 1376, (1975), "old notio[n]" "generally man's primary responsibility essentials," gender. ideas," id., 1378. also 198, 457. survive attack, some basis. 16 suggests purposes serve. Its states "designed" "the broken needs assistance," read asserting legislative objectives. One need. goal compensating divorce. concede, course, assisting objective. recognized "[r]eduction disparity economic condition caused history objective," 1194. remains, "substantially objectives." Ibid.10 17 Ordinarily, begin "needy spouse" sufficiently "accurate proxy," 460, dependency rests 'upon difference having fair substantial relation object legislation,' 76, 254. Similarly, initially approach "compensation" rationale asking significantly applied sex-based leaving sexes respect opportunities" sphere, Schlesinger Ballard, 419 498, 508, 572, 577, 42 610 (1975). Compare 318, 1195, Kahn Shevin, 416 351, 353, 1734, 1736, 40 189 (1974), 648, 1233, 514 (1975).11 18 reliable institution discriminate women, factors still adequately salient features of" scheme, 202-203, 459-460. statute, Russell Russell, 247 Ala. 284, 286, 24 124, 126 Ortman Ortman, 203 167, So. 417 (1919). reason, use Needy males helped along females little additional State. administrative-convenience exists operating generalization proxy.12 since vis-a-vis units defied stereotype alleged compensatory effectuated placing burdens husbands. Progress toward fulfilling hampered, cost more, making sex. gratuitous; aids," 1236, effort compromised. Moreover, case. spouse able pay, present give Although exempt obligation. [wives] benefit disparate nondependent husbands," Goldfarb, 199, 221, 1021, 1034, 270 (1977) (Stevens, J., judgment). They precisely spouses" "least likely victims discrimination," ibid., marriage. which, one, generates prefer 20 Legislative classifications distribute carry risk reinforcing stereotypes about place" special protection. Jewish Organizations Carey, 144, 173-174, 996, 1013-1014, (opinion part). purportedly ameliorate effects carefully tailored. Where, ameliorative classifies carries baggage sexual stereotypes, permitted classify doubly where choice redound—if indirectly—to solicitude. 21 Having found reverse cause further proceedings inconsistent opinion. disposition, leaves free substantive yet passed litigation. 450, (1938); 544. South Dakota Opperman, 428 364, 396, 96 3092, 3110, 49 1000 (1976) dissenting); 632, 1192; Green, 399 149, 169-170, 90 1930, 1940-1941, 26 489 (1970); Schuylkill Trust Pennsylvania, 302 506, 512, 295, 297, 392 Georgia Elec. Decatur, 620, 623-624, 606, 607, 925 (1936). Therefore, payments.13 22 Reversed 23 BLACKMUN, concurring. assumption language concerning "in sphere" relevant ante, 281, imply society-wide always irrelevant, cuts I join 25 STEVENS, Whether contractual decided. Part I-B REHNQUIST seems suggestions: 27 issue; direct 28 my correctly rejected alternatives. To accept either—or confused blend two—would violate principles federalism transcend significance case.* 29 POWELL, dissenting. agree desire reach dealt casually problems confront us. Rather assume answer depend, moot abstain reaching time. repeatedly observed: 31 "[W]hen premised unsettled stay hand order opportunity underlying possibility unnecessarily Harris Comm'rs Moore, 77, 83, 870, 875, 32 Elkins Moreno, 435 647, 1338, 55 614 (1978); Boehning Employees Assn., Inc., 423 6, 168, 46 148 Askew Hargrave, 401 476, 91 856, 196 (1971); Reetz Bozanich, 82, 788, Aldrich Aldrich, 378 540, 84 1687, 1020 (1964); Dresner Tallahassee, 539, 1895, 1018 Clay Sun Office, Ltd., 363 1222, 1170 (1960); Meridian Southern Bell Tel. 358 639, 455, 562 (1959); Spector Motor Service, McLaughlin, 101, 152, 101 Railroad Comm'n Pullman 312 496, 61 643, 85 971 (1941). follow principle 33 Here almost certainly litigation, least alter presented. concedes regard untimely, came time—more after became final—in enforce Ante, 275 4. interposed entry approval therein settlement agreement, questioned validity statute. If, provisions collateral grave arise States. hardly said policy repose embodied prohibition especial importance decrees. surprising, subsequent identical considered, new trial. Hughes Hughes, 362 910, cert. dismissed granted, 918 (Ala.1978), appeal docketed, 78-1071. holding apply fortiori proceeding. formal deals detail "property rights, matters dispute" approved court. requires "support maintenance, comfort" life she remarries. specifies "shall inure binding hereto respective heirs, assigns, executors, administrators legal representatives." 7-15. view obstacle acknowledge "may agreement"—as "state law" apart 275. entertained assumed enforceable constitutionally exercise dispute close difficult.1 addition, unnecessary adequate-and-independent-state-ground doctrine appellant.2 necessarily assumes assumptions appropriate. anticipate realization otherwise ordinarily indicate problem. substantiality identified unanswered questions. light otherwise. 37 uncertainty surrounding accentuated apparently contend entire invalid; seeks much imposes element detailed comprehensive signed witnessed attorneys. Apart effect itself appellee? Would contest, assurance valid providing maintenance lifetime? 38 Apparently none courts. explanation offered us why manner.3 conceded serious doubts presence judicially cognizable obtaining claim. sua sponte, interests fully adversary seeking—for reasons undisclosed—a purely advisory considerable importance.4 39 insistence merits irreconcilable long-established affording Alabama. REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, awarded divorced demonstrably had, contractually bound years. think eagerness invalidate led deal requirement Constitution. architects form government, exercising "judicial States" trench authority committed branches consciously limited Judicial Branch's "right expounding Constitution" "cases Judiciary Nature"1—that is, actual "cases" "controversies" genuinely adverse Central limitation judicial concept inquiry focuses party 'such controversy' warrant invocation federal-court court's remedial powers behalf." Warth Seldin, 422 490, 498-499, 2197, 2205, 343 (1975) (emphasis original), Implicit standing, requirements injury causation. demonstrate "personal stake" litigation necessary suffer "a distinct palpable injury," 501, 2206, 'fairly traceable' causal connection" government action. Duke Power Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 59, 72, 2620, 2630, 57 595 (1978), Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 252, 261, 555, 561, 450 When questioned, [he] shown redressed favorable decision." Simon Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 38, 1917, 1924, 48 Stated differently, places "stand profit interest" resolution, else gratuitous. 39, 1925. Statutes create impermissible generally attacked theories. First, confer members conferred Clearly, excluded benefits—have invoke judiciary. widower granting property tax exemption widows. (1974). Likewise, retired wage earner's higher old-age earners. Standing claims destroyed Florida Kahn, Congress capable frustrating victory withdrawing favored class. Second, saddle borne lies labor burden. For example, (1977), widower's provision Social Security Act burdened widowers widows task proving deceased qualify survivor's benefits. similar invalidated Frontiero Richardson, 411 677, 1764, 583 instance member uniformed services who, unlike counterparts, prove spouse's obtain increased quarters allowances health differ discussed above flowing imposed classifications: cannot; cannot. analyzed classifications. A. injury-in-fact unconstitutionally withholds particular receive suit successful. Supervisors Stanley, 105 305, 1044 (1882), shareholders national bank not, contrary deduction debts assessed value stock. With failed allege existence deducted reasoned: 47 "What render [state statute] void shareholder bank, owes deduct shares? denial affect him. pays same amount gave deduction. better authorized What interest affects others? Why act protect? Is sit abstract show interest, way, theirs? ". exists, delicate duty declaring legislation void, uncalled assertion suit." 311-312. undisputed qualifies earnings paid." 906, 907 (Jones, dissenting). pertinent Orrs' "[i]f separate estate insufficient maintenance." Ala.Code § 30-2-51 position contribute wife's support, less him.2 contrary, reduction changed circumstances. Davis Davis, 274 277, 147 828 (1962); Garlington Garlington, 246 665, (1945). sex-neutral statute.3 His founded would, sex, B while not. hollow according destroy elect away altogether. thousands currently checks support4 practical matter, nonexistent. conclusion lacks rest strong likelihood today's passing demonstrated State—even abrogation alimony—will 52 fixed makes unenforceable "despite [their] agreement." however, "which cannot, predict." 276 5. 53 accede offhand dismissal jurisdiction. "to meet minimum III: that, fact, consequence [unconstitutional statute], prospective remove harm." 505, 2208; 2630; 260-261, 560-561, 450; 1924; 617, carried acknowledgment enforced 54 aided attempt transform instant involving race discrimination. 273. Of required, operation Invalidation discriminatory relieve argue relief. Accordingly, behalf "would limitation." 1924. Nor supported supra. subjecting criminal prosecution "parent" "children." construed parents children impose children. mother child, "discriminatory application" injunction directing local district prosecute father violating "no suffered stemming child's payments," showing result[ed] nonenforcement, father, [the child-support statute]." 618, 1149. relief, result jailing father. prospect will, future, payment can, best, termed speculative. Certainly 'direct' relationship adjudicated, previous decisions suggest prerequisite absent case." Ibid. Like S., "substantial likelihood"5 termination far supporting finding leads inescapably opposite conclusion.6 lack somehow cured Article courts, Doremus Board Education, 342 429, 72 394, 475 (1952), taxpayer requisite First Amendment requiring Bible reading public schools. dismissing taxpayer's highest held: "We undertake say regarded advisory. But, cast 'case review, conclusive procedure constitute such." 434, 397. come like Marbury's each litigant heard Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, (1803), Doremus, are, prevented commissioned roam large, gratuitously righting perceived wrongs vindicating claimed rights. await advocacy inspired victory. Framers' wise personally ensures advance necessity complaining shoes champions. Obedience rules standing—the "threshold determinants propriety intervention"7—is crucial adjudication leave halls, what done undone except amendment. 62 Much "Caesar Brutus; Charles Cromwell," States ensure Acts run afoul limitations Brutus Cromwell discipline it. confined Nature," empowered ourselves satisfied. check sense self-restraint." Butler, 79, 312, 325, 477 (1936) (Stone, exercised self-restraint dismiss Ala.Code, Tit. that: "§ 30-2-51. judge, discretion, allowance out husband, taking consideration thereof family. 30-2-52. favor misconduct judge trying shall husband's estate, justify, made, liberal permit, being all 30-2-53. discretion deems allowance, regulated ability nature wife." "there awarding husband. 279 644, 158, 160 (1966). point. challenging constituting refers arguments "provide .," 905 and, oral argument, characterized award. Tr. Oral Arg. 7-8. proper Careful examination allegations reveals rely alleges reform chooses make. Even appropriate argues lower part. current comparative gender-related factors—e. man manner accustomed, agreements automatically decrees, usually reviewed fairness see Given allegations, unassailable preclude State, another late process objection—assuming, right, NAACP 377 288, 1302, 325 (1964). Brother POWELL points out, post, rule. 910 (Ala.Civ.App.), concern nullify existing obligations. decline tardily mean so. (1967), cited text, page. somewhat knotty problems. foremost simple action breach contract, disobeying approve settlements, fairness. How invalidation predict. Appeals, result. Cicenia Lagay, 357 504, 507-508, 2, 1297, 1299, 1523 (1958), overruled Miranda Arizona, 384 479 48, 86 1602, 1630 694 (1966), New Jersey Superior available, certification giving reasons—precisely situation existed stronger Essex rested Nonetheless, "Since petitioner's ON MERITS JURISDICTION EXISTS. [w]e nonfederal REHNQUIST's dissent contends quotation 299, confirms obvious proposition wholly obstacles albeit unsettled, something do. By addressing declined POWELL's objections remanded afford cites applying so-called "Pullman abstention" doctrine. deferred examined Not string 285-286, abstention referred more indeed disturbing, suggestion colluded Post, 288-289, evidence whatever, within outside supports accusation. none. imagine helping ex-husband resist demand $5,524 Appellee attempts buttress arguing common stripped married woman many most property, attempted partially husband." Brief 11-12. hands law," 11, weakness. parcel larger invidiously removing work "compensating" designated "secure." scheme—not uphold invidious parts. appellee's weaker facts ago removed, elements justifying Ala.Const., X, 209 (married women's rights). becomes purported objectives, statutes' goals place. Ely, Centrality Limits Motivation Analysis, San Diego L.Rev. 1155 "classifications penalized women," structure revealed enacted compensation discrimination." relieves administrative actions savings occur, event. willing forgo accrue, views—even reached. true, conserved, "[t]o mandatory accomplish elimination merits, very kind arbitrary forbidden 254, (1938), dispositive effect. There, available potential upholding school teacher. law; Contracts chose pass question. recognizing upon, relying proceeded below. remanded, noting stipulation, remand. probability remote understand meaning III. confuses means reason. Murdock Memphis, Wall. 590, (1875). bars (1882). implies equitable expressed unresolved 278 8. unusual posture illustrates, infra. Where policies underlie force. notes, 276. She reference attacks contested. Dale Dale, Ala.App. 310 inexplicable, (Ala.App.), 78-1071, spite decision's relevance initial handed down seven months us, announced curious, least, competency counsel evidenced thoroughness negotiated witnessed. abstruse difficult. presented, rapprochement genuineness controversy. innocent absence appearing wisdom Farrand, Records Convention 1787, p. (1911). four Constitutional proposal, contained "Virginia Plan," associate Justices revision advice pending legislation. 21. Suggestions Chief Privy Council assist President, President House request likewise rejected. 328-329, 340-344. "[i]t alimony." 271-272 notes motion, response judged contempt, provides part: "WHEREFORE, your Respondent moves decreeing "1. Code Title 34, §§ 31-33 arbitrarily violation clause thereby "2. permanent issued continued enforcement "3. ordering Complainant rendered null void." 24a. beyond me. entitlement irrelevant. concerned Case Controversy (1952). "unassailable" stipulations 273-274 interprets "that part." nowhere "archaic notions" role women—a going seriously Third, attributed patently meritless. definition, treats same. Presumably, accustomed incorporation Far rendering "unassailable," seized utterly beside proceedings, wait lodged challenge. Rather, "Our recent 'substantial likelihood' redress prong requirement." 20, 2631 seizes observation 'the prosecuted Such prosecuted, unfairly children,' 335 F.Supp. [804], 806." statement quoted passage faulted. causation standing—invalidation totally parent's harm. admits insofar concerned. 518, 2215,

Category: 1