Document: 404 U.S. 71 92 S.Ct. 251 30 L.Ed.2d 225 Sally M. REED, Appellant,v.Cecil R. Administrator, etc. No. 70—4. Argued Oct. 19, 1971. Decided Nov. 22, Syllabus A mandatory provision of the Idaho probate code that gives preference to men over women when persons same entitlement class apply for appointment as administrator a decedent's estate is based solely on discrimination prohibited by and therefore violative Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 93 511, 465 P.2d 635, reversed remanded. Allen Derr, Boise, Idaho, appellant. Charles S. Stout, appellee. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 Richard Lynn Reed, minor, died intestate in Ada County, March 29, 1967. His adoptive parents, who had separated sometime prior his death, are parties this appeal. Approximately seven months after Richard's mother, appellant filed petition Probate Court seeking administratrix her son's estate.1 Prior date set hearing mother's petition, appellee Cecil father decedent, competing have himself appointed estate. The court held joint two petitions thereafter ordered letters administration be issued Reed upon taking oath filing bond required law. treated §§ 15—312 15—314 Code controlling statutes read those sections compelling because he was male. 2 Section 15—3122 designates entitled administer one dies intestate. In making these designations, section lists 11 classes so provides, substance, order which listed shall determinative relative rights applicants administration. One enumerated '(t)he or mother' person dying Under then appellee, being members class, would seem been equally their however, 3 '(o)f several claiming (under § 15—312) administer, males must preferred females, relatives whole helf blood.' 4 issuing its order, implicitly recognized equality under noted neither any legal disability; ruled, male, female 'by reason Code.' stating conclusion, judge gave no indication attempted determine capabilities perform functions incident an It seems clear considered bound statute give male candidate female, each otherwise 'equally entitled.' 5 appealed from appeal District Fourth Judicial constitutional attack 15—314. dealing with attack, challenged violated Amendment3 was, therefore, void; matter 'returned determination parties' better qualified 6 This never carried out, took further Supreme Court, reinstated original naming reaching result, first dealt governing statutory law 'a mother entitled' administration,' but given 'mandatory' leaves room exercise court's discretion administrators. Having thus definitively authoritatively interpreted provisions involved, proceeded examine, reject, Reed's contention violates giving without regard individual qualifications potential 635. 7 thereupon review pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), we probable jurisdiction. 401 934, 91 917, 213. examined record briefs oral arguments parties, concluded arbitrary established favor cannot stand face Amendment's command State deny equal protection laws within jurisdiction.4 8 does not, course, altogether. Indeed, 15—312, woman whose spouse has son, father, brother, other decedent. Moreover, can judicially notice country, presumably due greater longevity women, large proportion estates, both wills decedents, administered surviving widows. 9 restricted operation situations where applications 15—312. such situations, provides different treatment accorded basis sex; it establishes classification subject scrutiny Clause. 10 applying clause, consistently Amendment not States power treat ways. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 27, 357, L.Ed. 923 (1885); Lindsley Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 61, 31 337, 55 369 (1911); Railway Express Agency New York, 336 106, 69 463, 533 (1949); McDonald Board Election Commissioners, 394 802, 89 1404, 22 739 (1969). amendment does, legislate placed into criteria wholly unrelated objective statute. 'must reasonable, arbitrary, rest some ground difference having fair substantial relation object legislation, all similarly circumstanced alike.' Royster Guano Co. Virginia, 253 412, 415, 40 560, 561, 64 989 (1920). question presented case, then, whether sex bears rational relationship state sought advanced upholding latter section, eliminate area controversy more persons, 15 312, seek thereby present 'with issue should named.' also sex, elimination females consideration 'is illogical nor method devised legislature resolve require merits * petitioning *.' at 514, P.2d, 638. 12 Clearly reducing workload courts eliminating contests legitimacy. crucial question, advances manner consistent We hold not. To either other, merely accomplish hearings merits, make very kind legislative choice forbidden Amendment; whatever may said positive values avoiding intrafamily controversy, context lawfully mandated sex. 13 note finally if viewed modifying appendage aimed objective, constitutionality saved. clearly establish degrees various accordance varying kinds Regardless secion situated respect objective. By providing dissimilar situated, supra. 14 judgment case remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. Reversed alleged estate, consisting few items personal property small savings account, aggregate value less than $1,000. follows: 'Administration granted hereinafter mentioned, they respectively thereto following order: '1. husband wife competent whom she request appointed. '2. children. '3. mother. '4. brothers. '5. sisters. '6. grandchildren. '7. next kin share distribution '8. Any kindred. '9. public administrator. '10. creditors time death. '11. legally competent. 'If decedent member partnership decease, partner estate.' Art. I, 1, Constitution. out n. 2, supra, appears superior brothers (class 4) sisters 5). now before affected respect, made challenge section. 12, 1971, Legislature adopted Uniform Code, effective July 1972. Laws c. 111, p. 233. On date, will, effectively repealed, there new legislation administrators estates.

Category: 1